Another Piece of Evidence Linking John McInnes to the Bible John Murders

[Geddy2112]

All over the papers in Scotland is a theory that a man named John Templeton was Bible John as proposed in a new book - Bible John A New Suspect. Apparently there is some family connection between Templeton and Mcinnes. Hence the DNA . Thoughts anyone ?

Very interesting, was there a shawl involved? (Asking for a friend)

[barnflatwyngarde]

All over the papers in Scotland is a theory that a man named John Templeton was Bible John as proposed in a new book - Bible John A New Suspect. Apparently there is some family connection between Templeton and Mcinnes. Hence the DNA . Thoughts anyone ?

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl, well this is really weird!

My friend contacted me a few hours ago with a link to the article, and asked me if I remembered working with John Templeton (the suspect).
I did remember him, he was an attendant with Glasgow Libraries Department.

I remember him as a quiet guy, who was always very dapper, even in his Attendant's uniform.

My favoured suspect in this case has always been John McInnes.
The recovered DNA from the third victim Helen Puttock, bore similarities to the DNA of McInnes's two siblings.

The two interesting things about this latest revelation is that his name ties in with what Helen Puttock's sister says the killer gave his name as, either John Templeton or John Sempleson, and the DNA link to McInnes.

I attach links to the newspaper article about this new "suspect", and the book focussing on this new "suspect."

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/suspect-bible-john-murders-identified-33039798

https://www.amazon.co.uk/BIBLE-JOHN-SUSPECT-Make-Worlds/dp/B0CZGTD7FW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?crid=33W1YSK4VYPE4&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.N1XoJJnbUy9A56oClLQBS26fM0N3zfhrLe41eppTrVv6xA99ckfURi5WnbEm3-EY.YusIJhJf2wtACnR1Dz5EHZqAMxfTTXWQ6gm5H9dwrR8&dib_tag=se&keywords=Jill+Bavin-Mizzi&qid=1718631622&s=books&sprefix=jill+bavin-mizzi%2Cstripbooks%2C248&sr=1-1-fkmr0

[Ms Diddles]

Interesting!

I had completely missed this.

Thanks for highlighting and posting links, Darryl / Barn!

[Fantomas]

Hi Darryl, well this is really weird!

My friend contacted me a few hours ago with a link to the article, and asked me if I remembered working with John Templeton (the suspect).
I did remember him, he was an attendant with Glasgow Libraries Department.

I remember him as a quiet guy, who was always very dapper, even in his Attendant's uniform.

My favoured suspect in this case has always been John McInnes.
The recovered DNA from the third victim Helen Puttock, bore similarities to the DNA of McInnes's two siblings.

The two interesting things about this latest revelation is that his name ties in with what Helen Puttock's sister says the killer gave his name as, either John Templeton or John Sempleson, and the DNA link to McInnes.

I attach links to the newspaper article about this new "suspect", and the book focussing on this new "suspect."

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/suspect-bible-john-murders-identified-33039798

https://www.amazon.co.uk/BIBLE-JOHN-SUSPECT-Make-Worlds/dp/B0CZGTD7FW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?crid=33W1YSK4VYPE4&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.N1XoJJnbUy9A56oClLQBS26fM0N3zfhrLe41eppTrVv6xA99ckfURi5WnbEm3-EY.YusIJhJf2wtACnR1Dz5EHZqAMxfTTXWQ6gm5H9dwrR8&dib_tag=se&keywords=Jill+Bavin-Mizzi&qid=1718631622&s=books&sprefix=jill+bavin-mizzi%2Cstripbooks%2C248&sr=1-1-fkmr0

Folie a deux?

[Fantomas]

Interesting and rich update, Mr Wyngarde!

[cobalt]

The author of the book claims that these were not impulse killings; that the perpetrator went out with the intention to kill women. Which does not sit well with the fact that she believes he gave his real name to the last victim and her sister inside a taxi cab.

She also claims he was interviewed by police around 6 months after the last murder. Since he had given up his name, John Templeton must have been waiting for a knock on the door long before that. You would have thought the Glasgow police would have been checking everyone with that name and would have contacted him long before that. It would be interesting to know why he was discounted by police at the time, especially since the author claims Templeton looked very like the artist's impression. Surely the police would have noticed the similarity themselves.

The photo of Mr. Templeton in the newspaper article is apparently from 1967, a time when hair was becoming slightly longer amongst fashionable young men. With his understated sideburns Templeton looks very typical for a 22 year old man of that period, whereas the non-sideburned Bible John was described by some witnesses as looking a little old fashioned. Most witnesses also gauged Bible John's age as late 20s, early 30s which fits with the age of the victims. Templeton, judging by the photo, does not look any other than a man in his early 20s. I suspect his hair by 1969 would have become a little longer and his sideburns more pronounced.

[rjpalmer]

The perpetrator went out with the intention to kill women. Which does not sit well with the fact that she believes he gave his real name to the last victim and her sister inside a taxi cab.

I had the same reaction. It doesn't compute.

And on the flip side, here is another puzzler:

"The man told Helen and her sister he worked in a lab. Templeton was a printer who after an apprenticeship became a compositor or typesetter."

Being a printer's apprentice in hardly working "in a lab," so what conclusion are we supposed to draw from this?

[New Waterloo]

I am finding this fascinating and since watching a documentary on TV have been giving this case lots of thought. I am not fully up to speed but thought I would chip in as so far the comments have been really good and are moving things forward. rjpalmer poses a great question. What his question tells us that we are all comfortable that the man told Helen he worked in a lab.

Now my experience is that when people lie they often give partial truths. Sometimes this is because in a conversation you have to think quickly for your words to be accepted. My suggestion is that when the man in the taxi, who I think we accept is the murderer gives his name as John Templeton it is not his name but somebody very close to him. Maybe a relative or close friend. So close it is stated without effort. Working in the lab, could be true or vice versa.

I think it unlikely that a he would give his correct name but slips up with the lab, unable to think of an occupation quickly. If Templeton was related or knew the suspect, or the suspect knew him this could be a breakthrough.

Interesting someone suggests that Templeton may have been related somehow to McInnes. Did they ever work together, were they related, what was McInnes job, and history did he work in a lab.

Just some thoughts

NW

[cobalt]

It's true that liars often tell partial truths to make their version of events more credible. But if the killer was bent on killing then plucking out a false name belonging to a friend or relative would not be very smart. The trail could lead back to him.

I think the killer did give a false surname either in the dance hall or the taxi but not necessarily because he was intending to commit murder. Many of the people attending the dance hall preferred some form of anonymity, none more so than 'Castlemilk John' who was in the killer's company for a couple of hours inside the hall. He could surely have helped the inquiry greatly but despite all the publicity he never came forward and is quite possibly no longer alive.

The 'lab' is an interesting detail and I agree it does not seem an obvious lie on first hearing. It's the kind of reply which might well lead to further questions and force the liar to make his web of lies more tangled. Safer surely to say 'I work at a bus depot' or 'I'm a travelling salesman.' So, like you, I suspect there is some element of truth in this part of the conversation. John McInnes had served in the military but I think was working as a furniture salesman at the time of the murders. It's been claimed that a small advertising card from the furniture company was found near the first victim.

[New Waterloo]

Thank you for the response cobalt. Your words are very wise. I thought about whether I should post anymore comments but I really think there is some mileage in this aspect of the case and I don't want it to just dry up and we miss a golden opportunity.

I agree it doesn't seem very smart at all to use the name of a friend/relative that would draw attention to himself but I think there may be an explanation. Although John is a very common name it is of course the first name of both McInnes and Templeton.

Now Templeton is not a common name. Perhaps I am wrong and is a common Glasgow surname. If it is I am a bit stuffed so to speak.

Now what we do know for definite is that there is a man in the taxi who is likely to be the killer. You are absolutely correct that some people want to remain anonymous for whatever reason.

But he does give a name. Now I don't know how the conversation went (do we have a copy of Helens statement. Bear with me on this please).

I cannot see why he would volunteer any name (what's the point, he is about to kill a person) Maybe he wants to distract Helen with a false name then why John Templeton?

Therefore I think it is reasonable to say that the murderer is not John Templeton. Unless he's stupid or he wasn't planning on rape/murder.

I cant see any person saying. 'Hello I am John Templeton' either

So perhaps he just said, 'I'm John'. Remember its been a night out, alcohol more than likely consumed, two ladies in the car with him, bit of chatting up.

This would be sufficient in most cases to retain his anonymity. Why the necessity to give a surname. Remember Helen is a first person witness who said the man said his name was John Templeton.

Perhaps as soon as he said John, he realized his mistake. Just a simple error which he has mere seconds to remedy. He says 'John, John Templeton' plucking at a familiar name.

What do you all think. Feel free to be brutal. Well not too brutal

Thanks

NW

[New Waterloo]

Apologies to all for any offence caused. Mistakenly said Helen was witness she was of course the tragic victim. Jean was of course the witness to state the name John Templeton.
I genuinely apologies for this error

New Waterloo,

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies to all for any offence caused. Mistakenly said Helen was witness she was of course the tragic victim. Jean was of course the witness to state the name John Templeton.
I genuinely apologies for this error

New Waterloo,

I think that it’s worth remembering that Jean Langford, who had been drinking (but we don’t know how much) wasn’t certain about the name that the man gave. The names ‘John Templeton,’ ‘John Sempleson,’ and ‘John Emerson,’ we’re all mentioned as possibles.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ms D!

I have just finished the book "We All Go Into the Dark: The Hunt for Bible John" by Francisco Garcia.

You are correct when you say that it is not an "in depth analysis" of this fascinating and frustrating case.
Rather it is a story of the author's research into the case, and the people he interviewed along the way.

It appears that he strongly favours John McInnes as the murderer, but doesn't actually come out and say it.

It is a frustrating book in many ways. He tells us about the extensive research he carried out in newspaper libraries, and the Mitchell Library in Glasgow, where I used to work.

I have read a lot of the material held in the Mitchell, and the author doesn't really share much of it with us.

He mentions some intriguing aspects of the case and then just leaves them hanging there, with no attempt to interpret or analyse them.
Specifically he tells us about the well dressed man with reddish hair who was seen dishevelled and with scratches on his face getting off a bus on Sauchiehall Street.

McInnes had an aunt who lived near where the man alighted.

A particularly intriguing fact in the book, is where the Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy who oversaw the DNA extraction from McInnes's corpse, discusses in some detail, the exhumation.

On page 191 she makes the following comment:

"We had to call in the dentist who was going to look at McInnes because Bible John had allegedly left a bite mark on one of the women."

McInnes apparently wore dentures, so is Dr Cassidy telling us that McInnes's corpse had his natural teeth, and the dentures story is wrong?
Or is she saying that they made sure that a dentist was present at the examination of the body because until they opened the coffin the simply did not know whether McInnes had his own teeth or not?
I lean towards the second option.

Someone who had done as much research as the author claims to have done, should have been aware of this important aspect of the case!

The definitive book on the Bible John murders is still waiting to be written.

Sorry about the late response Barn, I didn’t know that the thread had come alive again.

When McInness was exhumed they wanted to check his teeth to match it against bite marks found on Helen Puttocks body. Unfortunately McInness had dentures fitted sometime after the murders. He was wearing them when he was buried.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Sorry about the late response Barn, I didn’t know that the thread had come alive again.

When McInness was exhumed they wanted to check his teeth to match it against bite marks found on Helen Puttocks body. Unfortunately McInness had dentures fitted sometime after the murders. He was wearing them when he was buried.

No worries Herlock.

I think it might be significant that Scottish Police were unable to find any dentist in Scotland that had removed McInnes's teeth.
The possiblity therefore emerging that he went outwith Scotland to have his teeth extracted.

If he did, it could be another small factor that could be important.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All over the papers in Scotland is a theory that a man named John Templeton was Bible John as proposed in a new book - Bible John A New Suspect. Apparently there is some family connection between Templeton and Mcinnes. Hence the DNA . Thoughts anyone ?

Regards Darryl

Thanks for posting this Darryl. I don’t know how I managed to miss the post.