Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound!

That's a question that I have spent much of today pondering!

I would say that Jill's credentials are impeccable and her research is meticulous.

One thing that was very apparent is that she herself seems to have been quite surprised as the pieces of the jigsaw apparently slotted together bit by bit.

There was none of the usual shoe-horning, and I'd say only the lightest smattering of cherry-picking (which is probably inevitable in any suspect theory).

For me it all hinges on the credibility of the DNA sample.

I don't personally have a good enough knowledge of this aspect of the case, or understanding of DNA to be certain.

IF the DNA taken from Helen Puttock's tights was a usable sample and IF it ruled out John McInnes but indicated someone who was related to him, then I would be inclined to think she's nailed it.

I just have reservations about the quality of the sample and also the conflicting interpretations that I've heard around whether it really ruled out McInnes or was too corrupted to be definitive.

Jill herself was adamant that the DNA meant it could categorically NOT have been McInnes.

Her theory requires me to accept that BJ gave his real name in the taxi, which I struggle with, and there are bits of the "padding" which I can't accept (eg BJ as a moralist who only killed menstruating women to ensure that he wasn't killing his own "child").

That said, she was utterly credible and made a very convincing case.

Her talk definitely edged me closer to her way of thinking.

I really just need to get into the nitty-gritty of the DNA evidence.

Does anyone else have any wisdom to share re this aspect of the case?

Hi Ms Diddles,

Thank you for your characteristically considered and thoughtful response.

Kind regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yep! More pints of warm beer and the smell of sweaty rockers!!

Ridiculously expensive pints of warm beer too.

[Ms Diddles]

Lucky you. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Iron Maiden. Always a good show. Enjoy (although the Jaffa cakes might be few and far between)

Yep! More pints of warm beer and the smell of sweaty rockers!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Barn!

You too!

I've got Iron Maiden at the Hydro on Monday, so it'll be a week of varied events here!

Lucky you. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Iron Maiden. Always a good show. Enjoy (although the Jaffa cakes might be few and far between)

[Ms Diddles]

Ms D, by all means drop Jill an email.
I have dropped her a few emails about the case, and she has always replied, and indeed seemed very happy to discuss the case.


Have a good weekend!

Thanks Barn!

You too!

I've got Iron Maiden at the Hydro on Monday, so it'll be a week of varied events here!

[Ms Diddles]

Another point which I would make in Jill's favour is that it was very obvious that she approached this case as an academic.

It was very much an intellectual challenge for her, but she was also motivated by a genuine anger at what happened to the victims and a desire to bring closure for their surviving family members.

She has barely covered her costs writing the book and has used the media to her advantage when it's helped to progress the case, but it was apparent that she's the antithesis of a media whore!

Basically, as a suspect theorist she's at the opposite end of the spectrum from say, Russell Edwards which I think adds to her credibility.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Barn,

That is fascinating to hear the opinions of people who worked with Templeton.

It definitely edges me closer to believing it could have been him.

The impression I got was that once she and her colleague have approached the police to make their case for pursuing a DNA sample from Templeton's surviving relative (which she is doing today actually) she will be done with the case.

I think she's heading back to Australia this week and is currently working on another book (a case from the US I think!)

She was very approachable and seemed to relish discussing the case though, so I was toying with the idea of pinging her an email to ask about her sources for the police fixation with BJ as a southsider pre-dating the Croiset nonsense (and to nose about re the DNA!!!).

Ms D, by all means drop Jill an email.
I have dropped her a few emails about the case, and she has always replied, and indeed seemed very happy to discuss the case.


Have a good weekend!

[Ms Diddles]

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.

Hi Barn,

That is fascinating to hear the opinions of people who worked with Templeton.

It definitely edges me closer to believing it could have been him.

The impression I got was that once she and her colleague have approached the police to make their case for pursuing a DNA sample from Templeton's surviving relative (which she is doing today actually) she will be done with the case.

I think she's heading back to Australia this week and is currently working on another book (a case from the US I think!)

She was very approachable and seemed to relish discussing the case though, so I was toying with the idea of pinging her an email to ask about her sources for the police fixation with BJ as a southsider pre-dating the Croiset nonsense (and to nose about re the DNA!!!).

[Ms Diddles]

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

Hi OneRound!

That's a question that I have spent much of today pondering!

I would say that Jill's credentials are impeccable and her research is meticulous.

One thing that was very apparent is that she herself seems to have been quite surprised as the pieces of the jigsaw apparently slotted together bit by bit.

There was none of the usual shoe-horning, and I'd say only the lightest smattering of cherry-picking (which is probably inevitable in any suspect theory).

For me it all hinges on the credibility of the DNA sample.

I don't personally have a good enough knowledge of this aspect of the case, or understanding of DNA to be certain.

IF the DNA taken from Helen Puttock's tights was a usable sample and IF it ruled out John McInnes but indicated someone who was related to him, then I would be inclined to think she's nailed it.

I just have reservations about the quality of the sample and also the conflicting interpretations that I've heard around whether it really ruled out McInnes or was too corrupted to be definitive.

Jill herself was adamant that the DNA meant it could categorically NOT have been McInnes.

Her theory requires me to accept that BJ gave his real name in the taxi, which I struggle with, and there are bits of the "padding" which I can't accept (eg BJ as a moralist who only killed menstruating women to ensure that he wasn't killing his own "child").

That said, she was utterly credible and made a very convincing case.

Her talk definitely edged me closer to her way of thinking.

I really just need to get into the nitty-gritty of the DNA evidence.

Does anyone else have any wisdom to share re this aspect of the case?

[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