Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[barnflatwyngarde]

Cobalt is right in saying that there must be a mountain of evidence stored in Police Scotland somewhere, probaly Glasgow HQ, or possibly still in Partick station.

His summation of statements that must be in the police files is pretty comprehensive, however there are two other important witnesses who are rarely mentioned.

On page 40 of "Bible John: Search for a Sadist", Charles Stoddart refers to "a boy" who saw Jemima MacDonald and a man "sitting in a pub", and "a girl" who saw them sitting on a settee in the Barrowland.

No names are given for these two witnesses, but presumably their statements and names are in the police files.

Jeannie Langford is clearly the person wo saw most of Bible John, as did "Castlemilk John".
So her description of the killer carries some evidential weight, but what about all the other people who saw Bible John?

As cobalt points out the list is extensive; the Barrowland manager, The Barrowland bouncers, Taxi driver Alex Hannah, the boy who saw the killer with Jemima, the girl who saw the killer with Jemima, unnamed witness(es) who saw Jemima in the company of a man in Bain Street and in London Road, there may be others that we don't know about.

We know that Lennox Paterson relied heavily on Jeannie Langford, what we don't know is whether any of the other witnesses had an input.

We can safely assume, I think, that these other witnesses did in fact provide statements which led to photfits being produced.
The photograph which shows Joe Beattie in the incident room shows seven different photofits/artist impressions.

The witness statements which went along with these photofits would surely be fascinating reading.

[Ms Diddles]

It’s well and truly open as far as I’m concerned Ms D. All of Cobalt’s points are valid. It’s a head-scratcher. I know that it’s not the ‘be all and end all’ of the Templeton discussion but I just can’t help thinking “after all of that research what are the chances of finally zeroing in on a guy and discovering that he looks more like the Patterson portrait than McInnes’s does?”

Agreed!

To flip it, if it was Templeton then the Moylan's card is a hell of a coincidence too.

But one or the other IS a red herring (unless they were both BJ obviously!!)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yep!

That's where I'm at with this.

I suppose I'm instinctively quite taken with this theory as

1) I'm in Glasgow and the geography and cultural references of Templeton as BJ make perfect sense. It feels right to me.

2) I was impressed by the unforced way that the pieces of the puzzle (ie the possible coincidences you list above) fell into place for Jill without any of the usual shoe-horning and cherry-picking.

That said, Cobalt's points above are all valid. I would not be confident enough to dismiss McInnes either.

It really comes down to what the truth is about the DNA.

Either way it's been fascinating to see a new suspect theory that is being given serious consideration on here, and hasn't immediately been torn to shreds.

It’s well and truly open as far as I’m concerned Ms D. All of Cobalt’s points are valid. It’s a head-scratcher. I know that it’s not the ‘be all and end all’ of the Templeton discussion but I just can’t help thinking “after all of that research what are the chances of finally zeroing in on a guy and discovering that he looks more like the Patterson portrait than McInnes’s does?”

[Ms Diddles]

I agree and accept the points made by Cobalt. There are some things that we can’t know but I’d certainly love to know a statistical answer on this (probably impossible to work out even for someone expert in those kind of statistics.) What I mean is…what are the actual statistical chances of finding a Templeton going back those few generations down the McInnes line. Then what are the chances of the guy growing up in right area..being fostered..having just a sister (albeit a foster sister)….living just a short walk from the stop where Night Bus Man got off……and he looks about as close in looks to the portrait that Jeannie said was spot on as possible.

I’m not saying that Templeton was the man and I’m not averse to accepting coincidences but…..this one does seem a little….remarkable? Maybe I’m exaggerating but I’m unsure. I certainly don’t dismiss McInnes yet though.

Yep!

That's where I'm at with this.

I suppose I'm instinctively quite taken with this theory as

1) I'm in Glasgow and the geography and cultural references of Templeton as BJ make perfect sense. It feels right to me.

2) I was impressed by the unforced way that the pieces of the puzzle (ie the possible coincidences you list above) fell into place for Jill without any of the usual shoe-horning and cherry-picking.

That said, Cobalt's points above are all valid. I would not be confident enough to dismiss McInnes either.

It really comes down to what the truth is about the DNA.

Either way it's been fascinating to see a new suspect theory that is being given serious consideration on here, and hasn't immediately been torn to shreds.

[Ms Diddles]

So, to sum up. JBM has put all her faith in a DNA theory that, flying in the face of her scientific approach, can never be scientifically proven.

Hi Cobalt,

Are you 100% certain that this is the case?

I myself am not.

I've made no bones about the fact that I'm struggling to get my head around the DNA in this case.

Was the sample from Helen Puttock's stockings definitely so degraded / contaminated as to be of no use?

Why did the police state that it had ruled out McInnes if this wasn't the case?

I can't help but think that if the police bothered to swab Templeton's old locker in the Mitchell Library that they felt it worthwhile to do so.

To be clear, I'm not saying definitively that a hit with Templeton's living relative would solve the case, I'm just saying that I'm not sure due to all the conflicting info about the DNA flying around.

[cobalt]

After almost 60 years I think there are things we should know.

First up of course is the statement made by John McInnes in which he presumably supplies an alibi, two days after the final murder. (presumed missing.)

Second are the statements collected from patrons at the Barrowland who saw Jemima McDonald dance with and later leave the dance hall with a man.

Third are the statements of witnesses between the Barrowland and McKeith Street who saw Jemima McDonald walking in the company of a man.

Fourth are the statements from patrons inside the Barrowland who saw Helen Puttock dancing with a man. These may be significant in narrowing down how long Helen was actually in his company. The women arrived at around 10pm and left around midnight but some reports say that Helen was only with her partner for the last 30 minutes. So who was BJ dancing with before then? I doubt if the tight fisted BJ would have paid to come in for the last 30 minutes but even if he did then he would likely have been remembered by staff.

Fifth are the statements made by the manager and bouncer(s) regarding the cigarette machine rumpus at the Barrowland. There is a reported discrepancy in the description offered which surely should have been resolved at the time. We have discussed the possibility that the two 'Johns' were mixed up by staff- Castlemilk John is always portrayed as a quiet, uninvolved type- but he might have chipped in a few words of advice here and there in an attempt to keep the peace. (A re-enactment of the scene at the time might have helped tremendously.)

All of the witnesses' names could be anonymised along with those of friends in their company. There is little chance that BJ is still alive- Glaswegians are not known for their longevity- although I appreciate that a 92 year old was convicted of murder last week. However I cannot see why the above materials cannot be put in the public domain.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree and accept the points made by Cobalt. There are some things that we can’t know but I’d certainly love to know a statistical answer on this (probably impossible to work out even for someone expert in those kind of statistics.) What I mean is…what are the actual statistical chances of finding a Templeton going back those few generations down the McInnes line. Then what are the chances of the guy growing up in right area..being fostered..having just a sister (albeit a foster sister)….living just a short walk from the stop where Night Bus Man got off……and he looks about as close in looks to the portrait that Jeannie said was spot on as possible.

I’m not saying that Templeton was the man and I’m not averse to accepting coincidences but…..this one does seem a little….remarkable? Maybe I’m exaggerating but I’m unsure. I certainly don’t dismiss McInnes yet though.

[cobalt]

Which means that JBM can never be '100% convinced' he is Bible John despite her having said this. Her dogged detective work impresses me; less so her declared certainty. The DNA claim can never be proved either way, any more than was the case with McInnes. And although JBM has unearthed some interesting circumstantial evidence, I'm not alone in pointing out obvious blank spots in circumstantial evidence you might expect to find.

Then there are the anomalies. Templeton ties the knot in August 1969 then days afterwards he goes out and murders Jemima McDonald. Odd behaviour for a newly married man.

A couple of months later he goes out and murders Helen Puttock. After that he decides to stop murdering women for the rest of his life. Odd behaviour for a serial killer.

JBM believes that Templeton went out with the intention to kill (a minority view I think) yet before striking he offered up his actual name and a knowledge of a Children's Home in the vicinity. That was in addition to being with Jeannie most of the time who could surely identify him. You could add bouncers at Barrowland and a taxi driver as other potential witnesses to this man who had brazenly set out on his lethal mission.

Newly married Templeton then returns home minus a cufflink with a scratch on his face after 2am in the morning but his wife had 'no suspicion at all.' Not even when the police turned up on his doorstep about 6 months later.

JBM says that Templeton was never re-interviewed but Templeton, presumably hiding in plain sight, is boasting to colleagues that he has been spoken to by police twice. It seems being nicknamed 'Bible John' at work is the perfect cover. (If there was a second police interview it would be interesting to know why it took place and why journalists given access to files have found no record of it.)

Despite viewing women as passive receptacles of male sperm, Bible John Templeton does not at any time in his life go forth and multiply. He dies childless. His marriage broke up when he was around 30 years of age, presumably time enough to fulfill his religious duty with another woman.

I realise the last point may have a number of explanations but if one of those- namely that Templeton was sterile and felt the need to deny this in some dramatic form- then it can hardly have surfaced so early in his marriage and would presumably have been mentioned by his wife with whom JBM seemed to strike up a decent rapport.

So, to sum up. JBM has put all her faith in a DNA theory that, flying in the face of her scientific approach, can never be scientifically proven. Secondly, her circumstantial evidence has gaping holes such as being able to place Templeton inside the Barrowland Ballroom at any time, never mind the night of the crimes. And lastly, her theory contains many anomalies that would have to be ironed out for it to convince me personally.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Cobalt,

Hi Ms Diddles,

You have actually met JBM so I am happy to accept your judgement that her motives are not commercially driven. However she is in no position to be putting pressure on anyone, far less the police. Jill Bavins-Missi has not yet succeeded in establishing that John Templeton ever crossed the threshold of the Barrowland Ballroom. Nor, unlike a previous police re-investigation, has she shown photos of her suspect to any surviving witnesses such as bouncers or the taxi driver. Nor, despite subsequent suspicions of misogyny, has she any evidence so far as I know that Templeton ever behaved violently to a woman in his life. This is a man whom we assume has no criminal record whatsoever. Yet she believes her DNA theory should spur Police Scotland into action.

I agree that all of the above constitute "gaps" in her theory.

None of that conclusively rules out her suspect though.

Having read her book, I think there is quite a persuasive argument for the police to at least check it out.

We know that they swabbed the lockers in the Mitchell Library so they have taken an interest, however admittedly there's a huge gulf between swabbing an inanimate object and demanding a sample from a relative for all the reasons you mention below.

What sort of action? If they knocked on my door asking for a swab my response, given the above, would be along the lines of GTF. Even in the UK I doubt the police have legal authority, at least yet, to demand samples on the grounds that I am a relative of a suspect. No doubt they could then arrest me on some trumped up charge to obtain one, an action which it seems to me JBM would welcome as more valid than my refusal on the grounds of personal liberty. But what would it prove? Rather less than the sibling samples that the McInnes family provided I would assume, but maybe enough to satisfy JBM she got it right.

In similar circumstances I think I'd personally voluntarily give a DNA sample.

It'd be no skin off my nose (just a few cells from inside my cheek!!) and it just might help to solve the mystery and bring some closure for the victim's families.

I very much doubt Jill would be condoning the arrest of an 80 year old man on trumped up charges.

She did not strike me as being that mercenary!

Even if a close match was established would that be grounds enough to proceed to exhumation number 2 (supposing Templeton has not been cremated?) Since we are led to believe the original Helen Puttock sample is too degraded to be forensically useful I get the sense that JBM is advancing a pet DNA theory which she knows can never be proved or disproved. Which is not in line with her scientific approach.

Templeton was cremated so there's no question of any exhumation taking place.

[cobalt]

Hi Ms Diddles,

You have actually met JBM so I am happy to accept your judgement that her motives are not commercially driven. However she is in no position to be putting pressure on anyone, far less the police. Jill Bavins-Missi has not yet succeeded in establishing that John Templeton ever crossed the threshold of the Barrowland Ballroom. Nor, unlike a previous police re-investigation, has she shown photos of her suspect to any surviving witnesses such as bouncers or the taxi driver. Nor, despite subsequent suspicions of misogyny, has she any evidence so far as I know that Templeton ever behaved violently to a woman in his life. This is a man whom we assume has no criminal record whatsoever. Yet she believes her DNA theory should spur Police Scotland into action.

What sort of action? If they knocked on my door asking for a swab my response, given the above, would be along the lines of GTF. Even in the UK I doubt the police have legal authority, at least yet, to demand samples on the grounds that I am a relative of a suspect. No doubt they could then arrest me on some trumped up charge to obtain one, an action which it seems to me JBM would welcome as more valid than my refusal on the grounds of personal liberty. But what would it prove? Rather less than the sibling samples that the McInnes family provided I would assume, but maybe enough to satisfy JBM she got it right.

Even if a close match was established would that be grounds enough to proceed to exhumation number 2 (supposing Templeton has not been cremated?) Since we are led to believe the original Helen Puttock sample is too degraded to be forensically useful I get the sense that JBM is advancing a pet DNA theory which she knows can never be proved or disproved. Which is not in line with her scientific approach.

[Ms Diddles]

As reported, it reads more like a demand than a request. Methinks JBM is promoting her book and the Daily Record is happy to oblige, knowing that the tagline 'Bible John' remains a magnet for the Glasgow reading public.

I can't see a DNA test of a distant Templeton blood relative taking us any further forward and I doubt the Crown Prosecution Service would be keen to repeat a version of the John McInnes exhumation. Presumably with the same inconclusive result.

The article stated that Templeton had no children but I thought that he did. Or perhaps he acquired step children through a later relationship?

Hi Cobalt,

I'm going to respectfully disagree here!

It's uncharacteristic of me to be so devoid of cynicism, but Jill did not strike me as a shameless promoter of her work. Quite the opposite.

I think the project was more of an historical exercise or intellectual challenge for her.

I'm pretty confident that the motive here is to draw public scrutiny to the developments in the case and put more pressure on the police to follow up re the DNA.

I agree that the CPS won't want another public balls up, but a swab from some old guy living in Ayrshire isn't comparable to the exhumation of two corpses.

That said, on balance I think it's unlikely that they will proceed.

I don't recall anything about Templeton having children or step-children. I was pretty sure he died without having kids, but I may have misremembered??

[cobalt]

As reported, it reads more like a demand than a request. Methinks JBM is promoting her book and the Daily Record is happy to oblige, knowing that the tagline 'Bible John' remains a magnet for the Glasgow reading public.

I can't see a DNA test of a distant Templeton blood relative taking us any further forward and I doubt the Crown Prosecution Service would be keen to repeat a version of the John McInnes exhumation. Presumably with the same inconclusive result.

The article stated that Templeton had no children but I thought that he did. Or perhaps he acquired step children through a later relationship?

[Ms Diddles]

Article about the request to police to ėnvestigate a possible DNA link with Templeton's living relative.

Calls for police to reopen Bible John investigation after claims of new evidence - Daily Record https://share.google/MRnZPiOWwHu7RLUA7

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Barn,

There probably was not much to notice about the way Templeton spoke; some people are just more observant than others. The ex-colleague, who had worked with him at Possilpark and later the Mitchell Library, thought that he pronounced 'r' more like 'w' and 's' instead of 't.' On paper that looks like a clear speech feature (I should not have used the term 'speech impediment' earlier since it sounds so magisterial) but that well known Glaswegian Sir Alex Ferguson has a tendency to do the very same. Yet it is barely noticeable when he gives post-match interviews unless you are listening for it.

However in extreme cases like former Hillhead MP Roy Jenkins (mercilessly called 'Woy' Jenkins) it stands out very clearly in Scotland where, as is well known, we rip into the letter 'r' at every opportunity. Such a speech habit is often mocked and associated with being posh or even effete. BJ can hardly have come into this category but Jeannie did remember him as being polite and a cut above the usual Barrowland patron. She even used the term 'mamma's boy' which supports Ms Diddles suspicion of BJ coming from the West End of Glasgow.

Still on language, I think JBM places too much confidence in the name 'Templeton.' I offered a few variants of my own which would sound similar and have discovered that Jeannie herself had offered another variant in 'Semperson,' a name I have never come across myself. BJ might have been saying, in his biblical lexicon, that he was a 'simple son' and been misheard. In any case the glottal stop (usually missing out the letter 't' when it features later in a word) is endemic across central Scotland. The 't'' sound is absent in everyday words like 'enter' or 'hotel.' So it would be unusual to sound the second 't' in the name Templeton, thereby obscuring what the ending of the name was.
And that's before we take on board the possibility that BJ was offering up a false surname. New Waterloo's suggestion that a furniture salesman adopted the name of a well known carpet manufacturer (Templetons had 3,000 employees in Glasgow in their heyday) is an interesting addition to this blog.

Hi cobalt,
Re the speech pattern thing, I'm just not sure how far we can run with this.
You are absolutely right about folk from the west of Scotland ripping the letter r at every given opportunity.

Perhaps the killer just wanted to be seen as a cut above the usual type of men who were looking for a lumber at the Barrowland, and thought that by speaking "proper" English, as opposed to pure "Glaswegian", he was seeking to be a bit of a catch, and not your typical rough Glaswegian male on the pull on a Saturday night.

I had a friend in my younger days, who when talking to women he was trying to impress, affected a slightly effeminate way of speaking, totally unlike his normal speech pattern.
His technique, while hilarious to his friends did seem to have a very high success rate with women.

I think I agree with you in regard to the name supposedly given by the killer.
I asked Google to give me "surnames that sound like Templeton.
It gave me "Temple, Embleton, Pendleton, Milton, Elton, Kempton, Nettleton".
You pays your money nand you takes your choice I suppose.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I'm not so sure, Barn!

Prior to the release of the book I'd always had an inkling that BJ could be a west-ender.

The smart dress and well-spoken demeanour.

The bus-stops proximity to Kelvingrove Park.

The knowledge of the pubs in Yoker.

I've given this last point a lot of thought!

Yoker is categorically not somewhere you'd go for a drink unless you live or work there.

It's pretty obscure and there's nothing much there.

I would bet that the majority of Glasweigan's have never set foot in Yoker (although they may have passed through it).

I seem to recall discussing this previously and posting the famous Limmy clip (because it's funny, but also because I would bet he chose Yoker for it's obscurity. You see it written on the front of buses, but nobody goes there!!)

Now, of course we don't know for sure that McInnes wasn't familiar with Yoker, but Templeton is smack bang in the middle of it with his foster family on Dumbarton Rd.

I can't really disagree with anything you say Ms D.
Lots of little points, while not proving anything by themselves, do take on a greater weight when considered together.

We know the police interviewed Templeton a while after the murders.
Presumably they were checking up with men called Templeton, Sempleson, Emerson etc, etc.
This seems like straight foreward police routine work, looking to close any possible loopholes in the investigation.

With McInnes on the other hand, we seem to have police officers acting strangely.

For example the very high ranking officers going out to Stonehouse to look for McInnes, and eventually picking him up in Airdrie, I think.
And when they found him they pointedly did not take him to the investigation HQ, but to another police station entirely.

Collecting a possible suspect for questioning or an ID parade is police "grunt" work.
I find it very strange that high ranking officers would even consider doing this type of menial task.

The main problem we all have in assessing this case is the lack of sources and references in the books we have relating to the case.
We need more than what we read in the books and articles.

Audrey Gillan's podcast on the other hand, is a fine piece of work.
She gives us words spoken by actual police officers who were involved in the cold case review, she gives us sources for information supplied by other researchers, she managed to access official police files and outlines the information within.

Templeton might prove to be our man, but the police weren't spooked by investigating Templeton.
They were clearly spooked investigating McInnes.