Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[barnflatwyngarde]

Oh no! I'm getting the sense that I need to listen to those podcasts once again from start to finish.

I've listened to them twice already, but have such a rubbish memory that I've forgotten almost everything!

I think the last time I listened to them, I hadn't yet heard the name John Templeton, so it might be interesting to listen to them again in light of the new theory.

Hey Ms D, you must be reading my mail.

That's exactly what I'm going to do also.
I think that there's probably more there for us on a second visit.
The bonus episode with Jeannie Langford is probably the most in depth interview she has ever done.
There might be some treasure in there that we missed the first time.

[Ms Diddles]

Oh no! I'm getting the sense that I need to listen to those podcasts once again from start to finish.

I've listened to them twice already, but have such a rubbish memory that I've forgotten almost everything!

I think the last time I listened to them, I hadn't yet heard the name John Templeton, so it might be interesting to listen to them again in light of the new theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, using my skills in Parliamo Glasgow to decipher what Jeannie Langford (the actress Elaine C Smith) says, I can confirm that the exact words spoken are:

"The one in the papers, just there, the Mcinnes guy, was more like Castlemilk John. I'd never look at a picture and say "That's him."

With regard to whether a photofit was ever done of Castlemilk John, apparently a photofit of him was compiled by the police and circulated.
An article in The Sunday Mail of 23 August 1970 stated that:

"Several men carry cards with the telephone number of Chief Inspector George Lloyd because they have been brought in so often for identification. Police stations are now being circulated with another photofit picture.
That of Castlemilk John, the man who was with Bible John at Barrowland on the night Mrs Puttock was murdered."

Thanks Barn. That last quote must have gone under my radar.

[barnflatwyngarde]

The transcript (baring in mind how unreliable it is) says that the missing part in your quote is ‘just there,’ NW. Which makes no sense of course. I’ll see if I can get around to having a listen although it would be better if either Barn or Ms D could do it, if they had time, as it’s undoubtedly Jeannie’s heavy accent that has caused the confusion.

But you’re right. Jeannie was saying that the photograph published in the newspaper - of McInnes in his army uniform - looked more like Castlemilk John than Bible John.

It’s an interesting question though, and one that was raised in the newspaper by George Puttock if I’m remembering correctly, why was no photo fit ever done of Castlemilk John? The more I think about it the stranger it seems. No doubt Jeannie could have provided just as good a description of him as she did of BJ. To be honest I can’t even recall a description of CJ.

Hi Herlock, using my skills in Parliamo Glasgow to decipher what Jeannie Langford (the actress Elaine C Smith) says, I can confirm that the exact words spoken are:

"The one in the papers, just there, the Mcinnes guy, was more like Castlemilk John. I'd never look at a picture and say "That's him."

With regard to whether a photofit was ever done of Castlemilk John, apparently a photofit of him was compiled by the police and circulated.
An article in The Sunday Mail of 23 August 1970 stated that:

"Several men carry cards with the telephone number of Chief Inspector George Lloyd because they have been brought in so often for identification. Police stations are now being circulated with another photofit picture.
That of Castlemilk John, the man who was with Bible John at Barrowland on the night Mrs Puttock was murdered."

[Herlock Sholmes]

At approx 26 minutes into the Bonus Episode of the BBC Podcast Jeannie (actor) says;

'The one in the papers just the other (confused word) the McInnes guy was more like Castlemilk John' then says 'Ide never look at a picture and say that's him' She goes on the explain that people change over the years.

None the less this has to be seen as significant doesn't it? Not sure which photo she saw of McInnes but presumably the one where he is in uniform. its not even a maybe!!

Although she says the years prevent her making a positive ID of BJ she feels confident enough to say Castlemilk looked like McInnes. That's what's she saying isn't she?

Very odd

NW

The transcript (baring in mind how unreliable it is) says that the missing part in your quote is ‘just there,’ NW. Which makes no sense of course. I’ll see if I can get around to having a listen although it would be better if either Barn or Ms D could do it, if they had time, as it’s undoubtedly Jeannie’s heavy accent that has caused the confusion.

But you’re right. Jeannie was saying that the photograph published in the newspaper - of McInnes in his army uniform - looked more like Castlemilk John than Bible John.

It’s an interesting question though, and one that was raised in the newspaper by George Puttock if I’m remembering correctly, why was no photo fit ever done of Castlemilk John? The more I think about it the stranger it seems. No doubt Jeannie could have provided just as good a description of him as she did of BJ. To be honest I can’t even recall a description of CJ.

[New Waterloo]

At approx 26 minutes into the Bonus Episode of the BBC Podcast Jeannie (actor) says;

'The one in the papers just the other (confused word) the McInnes guy was more like Castlemilk John' then says 'Ide never look at a picture and say that's him' She goes on the explain that people change over the years.

None the less this has to be seen as significant doesn't it? Not sure which photo she saw of McInnes but presumably the one where he is in uniform. its not even a maybe!!

Although she says the years prevent her making a positive ID of BJ she feels confident enough to say Castlemilk looked like McInnes. That's what's she saying isn't she?

Very odd

NW

[Abby Normal]

one thing to keep in mind about bj being recognized and the lack of women who met him coming forward, is that there were alot of damce halls, alot of people, and alot of young men like him (tjere is nothing in his description or looks that really stand out) so it dosnt surprise me that not more women came forward saying they met him. Plus what good would it really do and or what are the chances it would lead to any arrest? very little i would say and the women probably thought along the same lines and with the usual feeling of not wanting to get involved and or being associated with those places, i can see why no other women came forward.

[cobalt]

Hi HS,

I see that you were merely reflecting the attitudes of police and media at the time; I think these attitudes helped Sutcliffe later mount his unsuccessful lunatic defence of hearing 'voices.'

For my own part I think the Jayne MacDonald murder was when I first became aware of lone women being murdered at night in the streets of Bradford. Up until then I am pretty sure the murders had not been reported nationally. For that reason, at the time of the Jayne MacDonald murder the term 'Yorkshire Ripper' had not yet been coined. The geographic reference suggests the term originated from national newspapers.

In the BJ case it's tempting to see some twisted morality at work given his religious remarks. When he made his derogatory remarks about married women attending the Barrowland (so why was he going there if he disapproved so much?) apparently Jeannie and Helen let him know they were married. This might seem an odd response at first- why admit to being disrespected by him? But from a female perspective I can see they might have been marking his card against anything more than just a late night journey home in a taxi. 'We might be married but we're not adulterous' kind of thing. This sensible admission did not work in the case of BJ- it might have even heightened his faux moralistic nerve ends. But my suspicion remains that had BJ been able to obtain some sort of reciprocal sexual congress with his victims then his moralistic musings could have been laid aside until the following morning when he made a point of praying to God for forgiveness.

Picking up on a point made by HS and earlier by OneRound: Did BJ have some sort of grudge against the Barrowland? Maybe in so far as the place was an unwelcome reminder of his low self-esteem. Or it could have been something more concrete. Here's one I came across many years ago.
A taxi driver I worked with was a self-confessed gambling addict who on rare occasions received exceptionally reliable tips on horse races from a jockey inside the profession. (The jockey received a free hire naturally.) Armed with this golden nugget my colleague always placed the bet at a small bookmaker where he claimed he had once been cheated out of his winnings, revelling in the pay out. Later he went further, giving free hires to a clerk inside the bookmaker as part of a scam to write in the winner after the betting slip had been time stamped. I think they shared the spoils.
That was a long way short of murderous revenge obviously but it showed a mindset completely foreign to me and most folks I have met in life. How did my colleague know the clerk was 'up for it?' Or vice versa? Why did BJ frequent the Barrowland when his photofit was on the wall following the Jemima MacDonald murder? How did BJ know the Barrowland bouncers would not bounce him down the stairs after the nonsense at the cigarette machine?

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

As a connoisseur of crime I'm surprised you referred to Peter Sutcliffe's declared mission to clean the streets of prostitutes. I think Sutcliffe himself later conceded this was a ploy to help his defence at trial. Before he committed his first murder Sutcliffe had attacked 14 year old Tracy Browne as she walked home alone to a farming area outside the city, having briefly engaged in a casual conversation she found perfectly pleasant until he struck. As a connoisseur himself- of prostitutes in his case- Sutcliffe must have realised she was not a prostitute. His later victims included two university students and a senior civil servant. Years before Yorkshire Police went down the rabbit hole of 'Wearside Jack,' local women's groups had stated clearly that the killer simply hated women but focused on prostitutes since they were easy to locate and engage with.

Given the sexual dimension to all three killings it's reasonable to assume that BJ went out to the Barrowland in the hope of some sexual activity. There might have been an element of self loathing in having to visit a place with a seedy reputation on Over 25s Night which triggered his later attacks. If BJ was McInnes, that would explain his preferring to operate in the more anonymous setting of a major city rather than trying his chances nearer home where gossip and scandal were more of a threat. This was presumably a man with a public image of being an upstanding Christian to uphold.

Having briefly read back on the Yorkshire Ripper case I was struck by how accurate some of the photofits created by survivors were. Unfortunately the best descriptions came from women who were not prostitutes so the police, adopting the raison d'etre later copied by Sutcliffe himself, did not consider them to be 'Ripper' victims. (By their logic there were two men stalking the streets of Bradford- one hitting prostitutes on the back of the head with a hammer and another merely picking women at random before hitting them on the back of the head with a hammer. No wonder they made such a mess of the inquiry from the outset.)
Anyhow, my point is that the BJ photofit and later painting may indeed be very accurate as Jeannie always claimed. Sutcliffe walked around killing for 5 years when his photofits were plastered all over police stations yet no one made the connection although he was interviewed around 9 times. BJ might have enjoyed similar luck.

Hi Cobalt,

In mentioning Sutcliffe I was only referring to the attitudes of sections of the media and the police who saw Jayne MacDonald as somehow less deserving of her fate than those women who engaged in prostitution. I just wondered if BJ might have seen women in that same way and that at the Barrowlands, with its dodgy reputation, he was more likely to find the right type. It’s certainly not a point that I’m pushing with any great confidence though. Just a bit of speculation.

I wonder if he might have had a bad experience there?

Yes, I recall seeing piles of photofits all over wall thinking how many resembled Sutcliffe. BJ might certainly have been lucky as you say. Especially if potential conquests just refused to come forward due to their own circumstances. It is perhaps surprising though that this clean cut, well mannered, neatly dressed, rather strangely moralistic guy wasn’t recognised. It does smack of him not being very self-aware though if he didn’t realise that his dress, manners and way of speaking (the moralistic/religious stuff) wouldn’t made him stand out. Or at least be memorable in a place like that. More afternoon tea dance at the church hall than Glasgow dancehall I’d suggest.

[cobalt]

HS,

As a connoisseur of crime I'm surprised you referred to Peter Sutcliffe's declared mission to clean the streets of prostitutes. I think Sutcliffe himself later conceded this was a ploy to help his defence at trial. Before he committed his first murder Sutcliffe had attacked 14 year old Tracy Browne as she walked home alone to a farming area outside the city, having briefly engaged in a casual conversation she found perfectly pleasant until he struck. As a connoisseur himself- of prostitutes in his case- Sutcliffe must have realised she was not a prostitute. His later victims included two university students and a senior civil servant. Years before Yorkshire Police went down the rabbit hole of 'Wearside Jack,' local women's groups had stated clearly that the killer simply hated women but focused on prostitutes since they were easy to locate and engage with.

Given the sexual dimension to all three killings it's reasonable to assume that BJ went out to the Barrowland in the hope of some sexual activity. There might have been an element of self loathing in having to visit a place with a seedy reputation on Over 25s Night which triggered his later attacks. If BJ was McInnes, that would explain his preferring to operate in the more anonymous setting of a major city rather than trying his chances nearer home where gossip and scandal were more of a threat. This was presumably a man with a public image of being an upstanding Christian to uphold.

Having briefly read back on the Yorkshire Ripper case I was struck by how accurate some of the photofits created by survivors were. Unfortunately the best descriptions came from women who were not prostitutes so the police, adopting the raison d'etre later copied by Sutcliffe himself, did not consider them to be 'Ripper' victims. (By their logic there were two men stalking the streets of Bradford- one hitting prostitutes on the back of the head with a hammer and another merely picking women at random before hitting them on the back of the head with a hammer. No wonder they made such a mess of the inquiry from the outset.)
Anyhow, my point is that the BJ photofit and later painting may indeed be very accurate as Jeannie always claimed. Sutcliffe walked around killing for 5 years when his photofits were plastered all over police stations yet no one made the connection although he was interviewed around 9 times. BJ might have enjoyed similar luck.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And who knows how far afield he might have travelled?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Even though they would be probably be in their eighties now. I feel there may be victims of Bible John still alive. What I mean is that I am surmising he didn't set out on any of those fateful nights to kill anyone. But when the poor ladies refused his advances, I feel he attempted to rape them and ended up , possibly they put up more of a struggle [ we know it looks like Helen escaped her killer at one point and was dragged back down an embankment ], his rage took over.
I guess what I am trying to get at is some ladies were raped and never reported it. Rape convictions are notoriously low and he could have said it was his word against there's , and if they willingly went off with him they might have felt the odds were stacked against them .
Maybe an appeal today of this nature IE Where you raped after a night out, around that time period and not just necessarily at the Barrowland or even Glasgow. If treated confidentially might illicit new information.
Barn makes a good point about other popular dance venues around in the late sixties. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Bible John did move around, especially if he had use of a car.

Regards Darryl

[barnflatwyngarde]

Indeed, or to put it crudely, he may have gone out wanting to get his oats and figured his best chance of that was at the Barrowlands over 25's night, where the women were "easy" (and ultimately disposable).

That brings us right back to the question of whether he was a Barrowlands regular though.

I suppose there are numerous possibilities, which all have different implications and raise different questions;

1) He was a Barrowlands regular. This explains why all three victims were picked up from there, but raises questions about why he wasn't recognised (particularly if he had other conquests from among the female clientele which had not ended in murder as per Abby). Against this is his apparent disdain for the place.

2) He attended various dance halls or was a regular at another one, and just went to the Barrowlands on occasion. This would go some way to explaining why he wasn't recognised. It was just coincidence that all three victims were picked up at the Barrowlands. Big coincidence though!

3) He attended various dance halls or was a regular at another one, but went to the Barrowlands specifically when he felt like slumming it or getting laid. This could explain why all three victims were picked up there, yet he was not recognised. If this was the case you'd expect there to be other conquests who never came forward, which I find hard to believe.

4) He rarely attended the dance halls, but just happened to go to the Barrowlands on these three occasions or thereabouts. Something about the victims antagonised or "triggered" him and it resulted in murder. Again it explains why he wasn't recognised, but is a huge coincidence.

5) He rarely attended the dance halls, but set out to the Barrowlands on three occasions with the intention of killing (perhaps with a couple of other failed attempts). As discussed on many occasions though, his behaviour at the cigarette machine and in the taxi does not seem (to me anyway) consistent with someone who is planning to kill.

I'm sure there are other options.

If this was a poll, my best guess would be 3 or 4.

As has been stated here, the killer had a choice of dancehalls in Glasgow.
All offering a slightly different ambience and customer profile.

He could have visited some or all of these on occasions.

If the killer was John McInnes, we have an entirely different scenario.

East Kilbride was designated a new town in 1947 and was subsequently populated by Glaswegians who found that their tenement homes were scheduled for demolition.
East Kilbride had a hugely succesful dancehall called The Olympia, and was popular with locals and people from outlying areas.
East Kilbride is located 12 miles from Stonehouse.

The town of Hamilton also had a popular dancehall called The Trocadero.
Hamilton is located 9 miles from Stonehouse.

We know that McInnes had a car, so it is entirely possible that he frequented dancehalls nearer his home.

The Barrowland is 19 miles from Stonehouse, so if the killer was John McInnes, we need to ask ourselves what advantage he would gain in travelling further afield rather than hunting his victims closer to home.

Perhaps the answer is that it was simply further from home, and possibly he perceived that the risk was reduced.

If he killed in Glasgow, the crime(s) would be investigated by City of Glasgow Police.
Crimes in Lanarkshire were investigated by Lanarkshire Constabulary, and there were very real problems in two distinct police forces working together.
Large organisations protecting their feifdom is nothing new.

If it was McInnes who murdered the three women, there were definite advantages in doing it in another geographical area from the one he lived in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed, or to put it crudely, he may have gone out wanting to get his oats and figured his best chance of that was at the Barrowlands over 25's night, where the women were "easy" (and ultimately disposable).

That brings us right back to the question of whether he was a Barrowlands regular though.

I suppose there are numerous possibilities, which all have different implications and raise different questions;

1) He was a Barrowlands regular. This explains why all three victims were picked up from there, but raises questions about why he wasn't recognised (particularly if he had other conquests from among the female clientele which had not ended in murder as per Abby). Against this is his apparent disdain for the place.

2) He attended various dance halls or was a regular at another one, and just went to the Barrowlands on occasion. This would go some way to explaining why he wasn't recognised. It was just coincidence that all three victims were picked up at the Barrowlands. Big coincidence though!

3) He attended various dance halls or was a regular at another one, but went to the Barrowlands specifically when he felt like slumming it or getting laid. This could explain why all three victims were picked up there, yet he was not recognised. If this was the case you'd expect there to be other conquests who never came forward, which I find hard to believe.

4) He rarely attended the dance halls, but just happened to go to the Barrowlands on these three occasions or thereabouts. Something about the victims antagonised or "triggered" him and it resulted in murder. Again it explains why he wasn't recognised, but is a huge coincidence.

5) He rarely attended the dance halls, but set out to the Barrowlands on three occasions with the intention of killing (perhaps with a couple of other failed attempts). As discussed on many occasions though, his behaviour at the cigarette machine and in the taxi does not seem (to me anyway) consistent with someone who is planning to kill.

I'm sure there are other options.

If this was a poll, my best guess would be 3 or 4.

A good summing up.

Personally, I’d favour 3 but if it was a bet I’d only use your money.

The fact that no other conquest came forward might be explained if they were married or had boyfriends. Or even if they were single they might have feared for their reputations.

[Ms Diddles]

I don’t think that you’re stretching it at all. As the Barrowlands had that seedier reputation it’s possible that the killer saw the women that went there in the same light. I recall during the Yorkshire Ripper murders the comments that were made when Jayne MacDonald was killed. She wasn’t a prostitute and so was considered by the police and many member of the public as an ‘innocent lass’ or a ‘decent girl,’ as opposed to those that resorted to prostitution for a living in the eyes of many. The idea that Jayne MacDonald had done nothing to deserve her terrible fate whereas….you know the rest. Our killer might have felt that by killing women from the Barrowlands he was less likely to kill a ‘decent’ woman (in his own eyes)?

Indeed, or to put it crudely, he may have gone out wanting to get his oats and figured his best chance of that was at the Barrowlands over 25's night, where the women were "easy" (and ultimately disposable).

That brings us right back to the question of whether he was a Barrowlands regular though.

I suppose there are numerous possibilities, which all have different implications and raise different questions;

1) He was a Barrowlands regular. This explains why all three victims were picked up from there, but raises questions about why he wasn't recognised (particularly if he had other conquests from among the female clientele which had not ended in murder as per Abby). Against this is his apparent disdain for the place.

2) He attended various dance halls or was a regular at another one, and just went to the Barrowlands on occasion. This would go some way to explaining why he wasn't recognised. It was just coincidence that all three victims were picked up at the Barrowlands. Big coincidence though!

3) He attended various dance halls or was a regular at another one, but went to the Barrowlands specifically when he felt like slumming it or getting laid. This could explain why all three victims were picked up there, yet he was not recognised. If this was the case you'd expect there to be other conquests who never came forward, which I find hard to believe.

4) He rarely attended the dance halls, but just happened to go to the Barrowlands on these three occasions or thereabouts. Something about the victims antagonised or "triggered" him and it resulted in murder. Again it explains why he wasn't recognised, but is a huge coincidence.

5) He rarely attended the dance halls, but set out to the Barrowlands on three occasions with the intention of killing (perhaps with a couple of other failed attempts). As discussed on many occasions though, his behaviour at the cigarette machine and in the taxi does not seem (to me anyway) consistent with someone who is planning to kill.

I'm sure there are other options.

If this was a poll, my best guess would be 3 or 4.