Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, it's annoying that I found out about this talk too late.

It's probably a long-shot that there will be any cancellations, but you never know!

Maybe barnflatwyngarde with his library expertise will have spotted this before I did?

Glad your brother had a great time at The Flaming Lips.

It's a shame that you missed it, but they tour fairly regularly so you may manage to catch them next time.

I’m a bit of a latecomer to The Flaming Lips but this was the second time that my brother had seen them twice.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I'm a new poster, so bear with me! I lived in Glasgow in 1968 and 1969, and Pat Docker was a colleague of my mother. They were both nurses on the same shift at Mearnskirk Hospital. A close friend lived in Lyndhurst Gardens, the next street along off Wilton Street from Melrose Gardens. I think Jill's research on John Templeton is very compelling. Like Jill, I am also a historian and a genealogist, and I disagree with you completey about the genealogical charts and information being an unnecessary inclusion in the book. The genealogical lines are there for people like me to explore further data as it emerges and also proves the point that there are Templeton connections in the McInnes family tree. I would like to write to Jill Bavin-Mizza, can any of you help me with her email address??

Hi Maz,
Welcome to the boards.
I hope that you have time to take a wander through the various postings on the "Bible John" thread, there is a lot of, to my mind, interesting stuff there, and some thoughtful considerations of various aspects of the case.

Jill Bavin-Mizzi's email address is jill.bavinmizzi@bigpond.com.

All the best!

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Maz,

Welcome aboard!

I couldn't find an email address for Jill Bavin-Mizzi however you could email her publisher on info@europebooks.co.uk and request that they pass your email on.

Perhaps someone else will have a direct email though.

When looking online for her contact details, I discovered that JBM is doing a talk about her book at Airdrie Library on Thursday 26th June.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/12Cwg4YTtp3/

Unfortunately all the tickets appear to be gone for this free event, but I've added myself to the waiting list incase any more become available.

Hi Ms D, It is interesting that Jill is giving talks on her book.

I am sure that there will be lots of interesting questions and feedback from the audience, although I think that the input you could make to the talk would be very valuable.

Perhaps if you contact Jill personally ( jill.bavinmizzi@bigpond ) explaining your interest in the case she could get you into the event.
I am sure that she would welcome your knowledgeable input.

If you do manage to get to the talk, perhaps you could post your thoughts on this thread.

All the best.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D, It is interesting that Jill is giving talks on her book.

I am sure that there will be lots of interesting questions and feedback from the audience, although I think that the input you could make to the talk would be very valuable.

Perhaps if you contact Jill personally ( jill.bavinmizzi@bigpond ) explaining your interest in the case she could get you into the event.
I am sure that she would welcome your knowledgeable input.

If you do manage to get to the talk, perhaps you could post your thoughts on this thread.

All the best.

Thanks Barn!

I'll give it a go.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained!

I'm not really sure how knowledgeable I am on this case.

I have a memory like a sieve, so everything I had learned while listening to the podcast and reading the literature on the subject has pretty much gone.

I would definitely require a reread / refresher!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ms D.

That might actually be how Barn emailed her (via her publisher) Lets hope that you can get to that talk. It’s a pity that you didn’t hear about it earlier.


Btw..my brother went to see The Flaming Lips on Friday and said that they were brilliant (sadly, I couldn’t make it)

amazing band

[barnflatwyngarde]

Thanks Barn!

I'll give it a go.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained!

I'm not really sure how knowledgeable I am on this case.

I have a memory like a sieve, so everything I had learned while listening to the podcast and reading the literature on the subject has pretty much gone.

I would definitely require a reread / refresher!

Ms D, I have a friend who works in Airdrie Library.
I have contacted her re the possibility of getting you a ticket.

I'll let you know the outcome.

[Herlock Sholmes]

amazing band

I’d have loved to have seen them Abby. One day hopefully.

[Maz]

Hi Maz,
Welcome to the boards.
I hope that you have time to take a wander through the various postings on the "Bible John" thread, there is a lot of, to my mind, interesting stuff there, and some thoughtful considerations of various aspects of the case.

Jill Bavin-Mizzi's email address is jill.bavinmizzi@bigpond.com.

All the best!

Many thanks, I'm still trying to work out how to use this site effectively!! I will definitely read all the posts.
cheers and thanks again.

[OneRound]

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

[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…?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.