Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[barnflatwyngarde]

That's me back from Jill Bavin Mizzi's author talk in Airdrie library.

It was fascinating but very brief at just an hour long including questions.

Firstly Jill came across extremely well. It was very apparent that she is an academic and historian with impeccable credentials.

Much of the talk was dedicated to why she had chosen this particular case to research (it's relatively recent history and numerous clues made her think she was in with a shout at solving it using the DNA as a starting point) and her research and findings which are all in her book, so there's no point in rehashing them here

I found it interesting to hear her flesh out the information about her conversation with Templeton's ex-wife June.

There was nothing new, but I found it intriguing how June apparently betrayed no great surprise at her ex husband being named by Jill as Glasgow's most famous serial killer.

She seems to have been quite forthcoming and open throughout their conversation, but neither defended nor condemned him.

Jill had purposefully avoided asking whether June had any inkling that her husband was BJ as she felt (I'd say understandably) that it wasn't June's responsibility either way.

The mic drop moment came at the end when she revealed that since the book was published she has managed to locate a living relative of Templeton's father.

She has approached him re obtaining a DNA sample but he has failed to respond.

She and a fellow researcher are planning on approaching the police to make their case and try to persuade them to get a sample.

Personally, I'm sceptical that the police will go for this, but you never know.

It was apparent that Jill is personally 100% certain of her suspect's guilt.

- you got a mention when Jill referenced people who had come forward who had worked with Templeton in the Mitchell library. It sounded like she had spoken to some of your former colleagues too, as she referenced more than one source?

Apparently someone had described Templeton as a misogynist and stated that female colleagues didn't like him.

I only recall you saying that he was always well dressed and unusually polite and well-spoken. I didn't recall the misogynist description coming from you (or perhaps I've forgotten it)?

I think that's all the most salient points.

Oh, I got a Jaffa Cake there too!

Hi Ms D, thanks for the report back on the talk.

Re Templeton's wife seemingly relaxed chat wih Bavin-Mizzi about the possibility that her husband could have been a murderer, I remember being surprised at the time by her seemingly relaxed attitude to Bavin-Mizzi's hypothesis. It is almost as if she welcomed the opportunity to discuss the matter.
Did she harbour suspicions of her own? Very possibly.

With regard to the labelling of Templeton as a misogynist, this came from some Attendants who worked with him.
My friend who is still working in the Mitchell asked some Attendants about their view of Templeton, and the "misogynist" quote came from them.

As I have already said on these boards, my abiding memory of Templeton is his very conspicuous neatness and politeness, but according to a few of the Attendants he had one face for management, and another face for his Attendant colleagues.

Apparently he made no attempt to hide his disdain for women when in conversation with other Attendants.
My friend's sister worked with him in the community libraries and thought that his attitude to, and interaction with female members of staff was arrogant and disdainful.
I should point out that my friend's sister came to these views while she was working with him, and shared these views with colleagues long before Bavin-Mizzi's book appeared.

In your PM to me you mentioned that according to Bavin-Mizzi, Joe Beattie came to the conclusion that the killer lived south of the river before the intervention of Gerard Croiset.
Like you, I don't know her source for this.
In Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search For a Sadist", which was written in close cooperation with Beattie, he makes clear that the "south of the river" hypothesis came from Croiset. On page 106 Stoddart makes a comment on the killer that sounds as if it came straight from Beattie, "that the fact that police did not find him there is no fault of Croiset's."

Again on page 106 we are told that "Croiset's reputation acquired over twenty five years of assistance to the police makes his findings deserve respect".
On the same page we are told that Beattie's use of Croiset was "an innovation".

I would be very surprised if Templeton's relative agreed to give a DNA sample, but who knows!

Did Bavin-Mizzi give any indication that here research was continuing, or she resting her case?

Once again, thanks for the report back.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D,

It was only yesterday that I wondered when the talk was but I forgot to check and find out.

It sounds like it was well worth going. As you say, it’s interesting that Templeton’s wife hasn’t leapt to the defence of her husbands honour and although we can’t read too much into that when we view it alongside the opinion that he was particularly disliked by female colleagues (and was described as a misogynist by one) it’s impossible not to wonder if she had a suspicion. Or at least that her experience of him left her unsurprised by the possibility.

The living relative provides a tantalising possibility. I wonder what reaction the police might get if they refuse to follow up on this. No need for an exhumation this time. Thanks for the report and a cigar for Barn for getting you in.


Only one Jaffa Cake? Yeah right.

Oooooft! Good detective work and interrogation technique, Herlock.

There was also a plain digestive, but I didn't think that worthy of mention!

[OneRound]

That's me back from Jill Bavin Mizzi's author talk in Airdrie library.

...

It was apparent that Jill is personally 100% certain of her suspect's guilt.

...

Hi Ms Diddles - many thanks for your review of this talk.

A quick question please. Jill Bavin Mizzi is, as you state, 100% convinced of John Templeton's guilt. Having heard her talk, how convinced are you?

Kind regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's me back from Jill Bavin Mizzi's author talk in Airdrie library.

It was fascinating but very brief at just an hour long including questions.

Firstly Jill came across extremely well. It was very apparent that she is an academic and historian with impeccable credentials.

Much of the talk was dedicated to why she had chosen this particular case to research (it's relatively recent history and numerous clues made her think she was in with a shout at solving it using the DNA as a starting point) and her research and findings which are all in her book, so there's no point in rehashing them here

I found it interesting to hear her flesh out the information about her conversation with Templeton's ex-wife June.

There was nothing new, but I found it intriguing how June apparently betrayed no great surprise at her ex husband being named by Jill as Glasgow's most famous serial killer.

She seems to have been quite forthcoming and open throughout their conversation, but neither defended nor condemned him.

Jill had purposefully avoided asking whether June had any inkling that her husband was BJ as she felt (I'd say understandably) that it wasn't June's responsibility either way.

The mic drop moment came at the end when she revealed that since the book was published she has managed to locate a living relative of Templeton's father.

She has approached him re obtaining a DNA sample but he has failed to respond.

She and a fellow researcher are planning on approaching the police to make their case and try to persuade them to get a sample.

Personally, I'm sceptical that the police will go for this, but you never know.

It was apparent that Jill is personally 100% certain of her suspect's guilt.

- you got a mention when Jill referenced people who had come forward who had worked with Templeton in the Mitchell library. It sounded like she had spoken to some of your former colleagues too, as she referenced more than one source?

Apparently someone had described Templeton as a misogynist and stated that female colleagues didn't like him.

I only recall you saying that he was always well dressed and unusually polite and well-spoken. I didn't recall the misogynist description coming from you (or perhaps I've forgotten it)?

I think that's all the most salient points.

Oh, I got a Jaffa Cake there too!

Hi Ms D,

It was only yesterday that I wondered when the talk was but I forgot to check and find out.

It sounds like it was well worth going. As you say, it’s interesting that Templeton’s wife hasn’t leapt to the defence of her husbands honour and although we can’t read too much into that when we view it alongside the opinion that he was particularly disliked by female colleagues (and was described as a misogynist by one) it’s impossible not to wonder if she had a suspicion. Or at least that her experience of him left her unsurprised by the possibility.

The living relative provides a tantalising possibility. I wonder what reaction the police might get if they refuse to follow up on this. No need for an exhumation this time. Thanks for the report and a cigar for Barn for getting you in.


Only one Jaffa Cake? Yeah right.

[Ms Diddles]

That's me back from Jill Bavin Mizzi's author talk in Airdrie library.

It was fascinating but very brief at just an hour long including questions.

Firstly Jill came across extremely well. It was very apparent that she is an academic and historian with impeccable credentials.

Much of the talk was dedicated to why she had chosen this particular case to research (it's relatively recent history and numerous clues made her think she was in with a shout at solving it using the DNA as a starting point) and her research and findings which are all in her book, so there's no point in rehashing them here

I found it interesting to hear her flesh out the information about her conversation with Templeton's ex-wife June.

There was nothing new, but I found it intriguing how June apparently betrayed no great surprise at her ex husband being named by Jill as Glasgow's most famous serial killer.

She seems to have been quite forthcoming and open throughout their conversation, but neither defended nor condemned him.

Jill had purposefully avoided asking whether June had any inkling that her husband was BJ as she felt (I'd say understandably) that it wasn't June's responsibility either way.

The mic drop moment came at the end when she revealed that since the book was published she has managed to locate a living relative of Templeton's father.

She has approached him re obtaining a DNA sample but he has failed to respond.

She and a fellow researcher are planning on approaching the police to make their case and try to persuade them to get a sample.

Personally, I'm sceptical that the police will go for this, but you never know.

It was apparent that Jill is personally 100% certain of her suspect's guilt.

- you got a mention when Jill referenced people who had come forward who had worked with Templeton in the Mitchell library. It sounded like she had spoken to some of your former colleagues too, as she referenced more than one source?

Apparently someone had described Templeton as a misogynist and stated that female colleagues didn't like him.

I only recall you saying that he was always well dressed and unusually polite and well-spoken. I didn't recall the misogynist description coming from you (or perhaps I've forgotten it)?

I think that's all the most salient points.

Oh, I got a Jaffa Cake there too!

[OneRound]

OneRound's thoughts on BJ are very much in line with my own and I will elaborate on some of the points he raised.

...


Highly suspicious. If he [John Irvine McInnes] was innocent and cleared by police why hide the records?

BTW OneRound I checked up on the Calvinistic financier Sir John Templeton whose attitude to making loads of money was described as being, 'It's fine so long as you don't enjoy it.' Maybe a bit like BJ's attitude to sex. Sir John lived pretty frugally apparently and adopted a financial system later developed and named after one James Tobin. No relation I am sure.

Hi cobalt - thanks for those comments above and your other elaborations.

Beattie and other high ranking officers dealing with John Irvine McInnes in the way that they did is highly, highly odd.

A total guess on my part is that they might have gone to see him not so much in expectation of making an arrest him but rather to rule him out. Possibly he had been linked in some way (? the Moylans business card) but his police officer cousin had assured Beattie et al that McInnes couldn't be their man. Consequently, they (too) readily accepted any alibi proffered with insufficient checking and dubious record keeping.

Similar to Herlock, I can't say with any great confidence that John Irvine McInnes was Bible John but for me he remains the most likely candidate. Certainly, the pathologist on the Audrey Gillan podcast made clear that whilst there wasn't DNA evidence to prove his guilt, there equally was nothing to establish innocence.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only other Gillan that I know is the lead singer of Deep Purple.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Ha ha!
Absolutely right Herlock.
I know a few women with the surname Gillan, and I'm always mixing them up.

DOH!

[Herlock Sholmes]

"My first thought was that you guys were being pretty harsh in your criticism of Joe Beattie. He was after all trying to catch the killer in what was then ''the here and now'' and not pave the way for our discussions more than fifty years later." (OneRound)

The more I look at this case the more I cant help but think that Joe Beattie completely screwed the investigation up.
He took the word of a "clairvoyant", Gerard Croiset that the killer lived in the Govan area.
Hence the interviewing of the ferrymen on the Govan Ferry.
This is sheer stupidity and incompetence, and no excuse can be made for him that in those far off days people were less sceptical than today.
Was this a deliberate move to muddy the waters of the investigation? Who knows!

Cobalt makes the good point that the bouncers should have been questioned thoroughly to ascertain what they saw.
During the incident with the cigarette machine, there would have been more than one bouncer watching the interaction between the manager and Bible John.
It was standard practice that more than one bouncer would be present at any incident that had the possibility of escalating into violence.
So, there would be the manager and at least two bouncers closely watching the incident at the cigarette machine.
Their senses would be heightened, adrenaline does that to a a body.

Are there detailed statements from the manager and the bouncers sitting in the official files?
I don't remember them being mentioned in Karen Gillan's podcast, but I could be mistaken.

I have a strong feeling that the interest generated by Jill Bavin-Mizzi's book and Karen Gillan's podcast may well lead to someone producing the definitive book that this fascinating case deserves.

My apologies for being Mr Nitpick Barn.

The podcast presenter was Audrey Gillan.

Have you been watching some old episodes of Dr. Who lately?

[cobalt]

to find our Slater from a narrowed down group?

Your inadvertent capital on the word 'Slater' also opens up the possibility that this was actually his surname. Maybe Jeannie simply misheard and assumed it was his occupation. Surely to goodness the police investigated that possibility.

I’m wondering if he actually came from Castlemilk,

I would think he did. By the late 1960s the three big Glasgow housing schemes- Castlemilk, Drumchapel and Easterhouse- had acquired (probably unfairly) a poor reputation so no one was likely to volunteer the information that they came from there, especially if trying to impress women on a night out. If he was going to lie about his home address he could have made a better choice.
I wonder if CJ had some sort of criminal record himself and was frightened that he might become embroiled in something very serious, perhaps fearful of being accused as an accomplice.

[barnflatwyngarde]

"My first thought was that you guys were being pretty harsh in your criticism of Joe Beattie. He was after all trying to catch the killer in what was then ''the here and now'' and not pave the way for our discussions more than fifty years later." (OneRound)

The more I look at this case the more I cant help but think that Joe Beattie completely screwed the investigation up.
He took the word of a "clairvoyant", Gerard Croiset that the killer lived in the Govan area.
Hence the interviewing of the ferrymen on the Govan Ferry.
This is sheer stupidity and incompetence, and no excuse can be made for him that in those far off days people were less sceptical than today.
Was this a deliberate move to muddy the waters of the investigation? Who knows!

Cobalt makes the good point that the bouncers should have been questioned thoroughly to ascertain what they saw.
During the incident with the cigarette machine, there would have been more than one bouncer watching the interaction between the manager and Bible John.
It was standard practice that more than one bouncer would be present at any incident that had the possibility of escalating into violence.
So, there would be the manager and at least two bouncers closely watching the incident at the cigarette machine.
Their senses would be heightened, adrenaline does that to a a body.

Are there detailed statements from the manager and the bouncers sitting in the official files?
I don't remember them being mentioned in Karen Gillan's podcast, but I could be mistaken.

I have a strong feeling that the interest generated by Jill Bavin-Mizzi's book and Karen Gillan's podcast may well lead to someone producing the definitive book that this fascinating case deserves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Castlemilk is often thought of as a Glasgow housing scheme but at the time it had a population of almost 40,000, as big as most Scottish towns, so finding one man might not have been a simple matter. Nevertheless we can assume he gave his correct location, first name and occupation- a slater- since he had no reason to lie about these things. That should have narrowed the search considerably once we take his age profile into account. Plus a description from Jeannie. It was a serious weakness in the investigation. Although CJ was clearly reluctant to come forward he would, if contacted, surely have proved a valuable witness.
His reluctance to come forward may have been social embarrassment in respect of his private life but there are other possibilities. Perhaps he had experienced bad dealings with the police previously and had heard of friends being 'fitted up.' Perhaps BJ had remarked on having a relative in the Glasgow Police Force. It's odd that CJ has retained his silence for over 50 years if still alive.

I’m wondering if he actually came from Castlemilk, Cobalt? If he was a bit of a Jack-the-lad type he might not have wanted any of his lady friends from Barrowlands trying to seek him out, so he could have lived elsewhere. As you’ve pointed out, in a case as important as this, how long would it have taken to find all of the adult John’s in Castlemilk and then eliminated the ‘too olds’ and the ‘too youngs’ to find our Slater from a narrowed down group? It’s a pity that we have no information on the extent of the search.

I might have tried putting out notices in the Press asking for him to come forward saying something like “we are currently working on getting an accurate drawing of this man based on witness information.” This might have scared him into coming forward before his face was plastered everywhere.

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

It’s certainly an intriguing and baffling case. I think that the Bavin-Mizzi book is excellent and that John Templeton has to be considered a valid suspect but I agree with you in coming back to that same point - why would he have given his own name to be heard by a woman (Jean) who he had no intention of silencing. I’m wondering though if it’s possible that, as he was talking directly to Helen, he might have felt that he’d said it quiet enough for Jean not to have heard it? Maybe if Jean had had ‘a few’ and might have been jabbering on that he felt that she wouldn’t have been paying too close attention? I don’t know.

We know that the taxi driver picked McInnes from a photograph as the ‘John’ in the taxi but if McInnes and Templeton resembled each other…?

Cheers, Herlock. It still strikes me that to give his real name was a big and unnecessary risk to take.

Best,
OneRound

[cobalt]

OneRound's thoughts on BJ are very much in line with my own and I will elaborate on some of the points he raised.

* Belated and weak attempt to trace Castlemilk John

Castlemilk is often thought of as a Glasgow housing scheme but at the time it had a population of almost 40,000, as big as most Scottish towns, so finding one man might not have been a simple matter. Nevertheless we can assume he gave his correct location, first name and occupation- a slater- since he had no reason to lie about these things. That should have narrowed the search considerably once we take his age profile into account. Plus a description from Jeannie. It was a serious weakness in the investigation. Although CJ was clearly reluctant to come forward he would, if contacted, surely have proved a valuable witness.
His reluctance to come forward may have been social embarrassment in respect of his private life but there are other possibilities. Perhaps he had experienced bad dealings with the police previously and had heard of friends being 'fitted up.' Perhaps BJ had remarked on having a relative in the Glasgow Police Force. It's odd that CJ has retained his silence for over 50 years if still alive.

* Cursory forensics of the taxi and apparently limited follow up with the taxi driver.

Quite a euphemistic description. The fact the the taxi driver did not attend the ID parade of McInnes because he was retracing the taxi route with McInnes' uncle is highly suspicious.

* Limited use of other potential witnesses, particularly the bouncers and other staff at the Barrowland

Absolutely. Bouncers are sober and their job is to remember faces and be alert for troublemakers, which BJ was in respect of the cigarette machine. And what about the other dancers? BJ must have had some fleeting, casual interactions with other patrons: he surely did not enter the Barrowland and pick out a dance partner/victim immediately. Could a similarly built policeman resembling BJ and wearing the same clothing not have been found to stand in the foyer the following week to help jog memories?

* The Moylans business card - its finding should have been clearly confirmed or denied and, if found, forensically tested

The Moylan's card should have been the Rosetta stone of the investigation. A furniture firm 12 miles from the murder scene and with presumably no connection to the residences where Helen Puttock's body was discovered points to it being dislodged during the struggle. If it came from Helen's clothing or handbag it may be a red herring since we don't know how she obtained it, but more likely it was given to her by her attacker earlier or fell from his clothing. That narrows it down to about three men we know of. (There is the remote possibility it was a 'throw down' to mislead the police, I suppose.)

* Notwithstanding Beattie operating in ''the here and now'', total absence of records explaining why John Irvine McInnes was investigated and what went on with him.

Highly suspicious. If he was innocent and cleared by police why hide the records?

BTW OneRound I checked up on the Calvinistic financier Sir John Templeton whose attitude to making loads of money was described as being, 'It's fine so long as you don't enjoy it.' Maybe a bit like BJ's attitude to sex. Sir John lived pretty frugally apparently and adopted a financial system later developed and named after one James Tobin. No relation I am sure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi folks

Last year I said that I would look into this intriguing, frustrating and deeply sad case and try to comment but life kept getting in the way. Apologies for that.

Anyway, although I haven't (yet) read this new book, I thought that and this newish thread was a fair place to start off. I have at least listened twice to the excellent Audrey Gillan podcast, been through all the posts on this forum and dabbled with a few writings and recordings from various sources on the net.

My first thought was that you guys were being pretty harsh in your criticism of Joe Beattie. He was after all trying to catch the killer in what was then ''the here and now'' and not pave the way for our discussions more than fifty years later. However, that thought soon rapidly diluted when picking up on some of the investigation's glaring mistakes and omissions. These include but certainly aren't limited to:

* Belated and weak attempt to trace Castlemilk John;
* Cursory forensics of the taxi and apparently limited follow up with the taxi driver;
* Limited use of other potential witnesses, particularly the bouncers and other staff at the Barrowland;
* The Moylans business card - its finding should have been clearly confirmed or denied and, if found, forensically tested;
* Notwithstanding Beattie operating in ''the here and now'', total absence of records explaining why John Irvine McInnes was investigated and what went on with him.

With all those issues and more in the mix, I salute Jill Bavin-Mizzi in undertaking what is viewed as very thorough research and trying to now identify Bible John. However, I have massive difficulty in believing it was John Templeton - or any Templeton. I cannot accept that someone who had already killed twice and was perhaps contemplating a third victim would volunteer his real name. There seems to be a suggestion that his religious upbringing would prevent him telling a lie. I just can't buy that. As well as killing these women, he had sexually assaulted them and stolen their clothes, money and other possessions. To my mind, a lie is nothing to blink an eye at in all that.

Also, and as flagged recently by Herlock, there is no certainty whatsoever that the killer even said his name was ''Templeton''. A related and further frustration is that reports vary as to whether Jean Langford was pretty sober or half-sozzled.

I would mention that there was a billionaire philanthropist alive at this time, Sir John Templeton (1912 - 2008) who was an active member of the Presbyterian Church and founder of religious trusts and spiritual foundations. Wiki provides details if anyone is interested. There's not the remotest suggestion he was involved - he became a British citizen but was born in the USA and spent much of his life in the Bahamas. However, if Jean did hear and recall the name ''Templeton'' correctly, I wonder if Bible John had seen a tv programme or read an article highlighting this individual and, perhaps being impressed, decided to use his name. Admittedly, pure speculation.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OneRound,

It’s certainly an intriguing and baffling case. I think that the Bavin-Mizzi book is excellent and that John Templeton has to be considered a valid suspect but I agree with you in coming back to that same point - why would he have given his own name to be heard by a woman (Jean) who he had no intention of silencing. I’m wondering though if it’s possible that, as he was talking directly to Helen, he might have felt that he’d said it quiet enough for Jean not to have heard it? Maybe if Jean had had ‘a few’ and might have been jabbering on that he felt that she wouldn’t have been paying too close attention? I don’t know.

We know that the taxi driver picked McInnes from a photograph as the ‘John’ in the taxi but if McInnes and Templeton resembled each other…?