Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is an impressive book and the author is to be congratulated on her work but for the benefit of those that haven’t read the book I’ll add some background. The author tracked back 7 generations to the 18th century to find the name Templeton in the McInnes ancestry (on the basis of the ‘John,’ who was with Helen in the taxi, saying that his name was ‘Templeton, Sempleson, or Emerson’). She says: “So the odds of finding the name “Templeton” among a total of 63 surnames introduced in any seven-generational search are remote. But the odds of finding the surname offered by Bible John among the ancestors of a family with DNA connection to the killer, is well beyond remote. It is nothing short of extraordinary.”

She has produced genealogical tables which, I have to admit, don’t help me much as genealogy is a foreign language to me I’m afraid. I don’t know how I’m supposed to read those tables or what they are supposed to tell me. That’s not a criticism of the author by the way, I’m just expressing a shortcoming of my own that I have in regard to this kind of stuff. No doubt the genealogists on here would make light work of them.

That said, the author now had a point of convergence between the McInnes family line and the name Templeton. She then worked her way forward from the 18th century to the modern day creating ‘a family tree in reverse,’ to use her own phrase. The first name that came up was John Muir Templeton (1933-1998) who was turning 36 in 1969. Slightly older than reports but not problematically so. But next the author says that there are problems that arise when trying to track all of the John Templeton’s that are the targets of the search and so a more efficient alternative was to use the Scotland’s People database and to look for any John Templeton’s born between 1931 and 1946 inclusive. The search brought up 32 of them but of course it can’t be known if any of these have any kind of familial link to the McInnes family.

The author then uses various criteria to narrow down the list. Some are obvious. For example two sadly didn’t make it to adulthood and one emigrated to Canada in 1957 with no record of him returning to the UK. She then tracked through records and through social media groups looking for photographs or descriptions to eliminate those that were clearly unlike the descriptions of Bible John. This narrowed the list down to sixteen. She then eliminate three on the grounds that they were manual workers and Bible John had pristine hands according to Jeannie. Then as John mentioned being fostered and that he knew that they had passed the location of what used to be a children’s home during the taxi ride she checked which John Templeton’s had definitely grown up with their parents (and not in possible care). This process left her with just five John Templeton’s. She had to give up on two of these as no information could be found so she now had three. And it looked like all three could have spent time in care.

The first was born in 1945 but via a Facebook group she found that, in his younger days, this guy would have had dark hair so out he went. Two left. Next was John McAdam Templeton born in 1939. The author then traced back his lineage to a point of connection with the McInnes family. After much research there was nothing to connect him to the Scotstoun Children’s Home or even to Glasgow (he was born in Muirkirk) but he couldn’t be eliminated from the short list.

The final John Templeton, the man that she believes was Bible John, was born on 27th March 1945 and died in 2015!


Ok..points and questions.


1. My first point is that I was under the impression that the initial claim was that the author had found a suspect that wasn’t John Irvine McInnes but who had a familial connection? Did I get the wrong impression or misunderstand the lead up to the book because, as it stands, there is no evidence that this John Templeton has any connection to the McInnes family. This doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have one of course.

2. A question for Barn and MsD…what happened to John Muir Templeton (1933-1998)? What did I miss? How and why was he eliminated? It seems that he was discovered as having an actual ancestral link but then forgotten about?

3. Is it being forgotten that Jeannie said: “Templeton, Sempleson, Emerson,” as possibles for the name given by John in the taxi? So why not one of the other two names? Also, as she was saying that it just sounded like one of the above, then it’s possible that it could have been something entirely different. It could have been Templeman or Emery or Henderson?

4. I’m also not totally convinced about the killer giving his real name in the taxi. The author suggests that as the killer had a rigid moral code that he would have been reluctant to lie. Others might disagree but I’m nowhere near convinced by this. Yes, he knew that Helen was going to die but Jeannie wasn’t. Could he have been unaware that Jeannie had heard him give his real name? Not impossible but surely unlikely in the confines of a taxi? And was it a black cab type or just a normal car? If the latter then he would also have risked the driver hearing it too. So whilst I’m not dismissing it I tend to doubt that a killer would have given his real name under those circumstances.

5. Might he have given a clue though? I haven’t seen this picked up on before but when asked about what he did for holidays John said that his family had a caravan. Where? In Irvine (John IRVINE McInnes?) Only a suggestion.

6. The photograph of the John Templeton who is the subject of the book (and who I have to admit looks a lot like the painting by Patterson) has his hair parted on the wrong side and the missing tooth on the wrong side but his wife recalled which side he parted his hair on so it appears possible that the photograph was reversed from the negative. I was a little wary of this at first but I certainly don’t want to imply any dishonesty as I see no evidence of it anywhere in the book. Agree or disagree with conclusions and suggestions, I think that this is an honest book.

7. Finally, in the photograph Templeton’s mouth isn’t open enough to see the overlapping teeth mentioned by Jeannie. A dentist said that he ‘might’ just be able to discern a slight overlap but this doesn’t convince me. Look at the mould that Beattie carried. It was made from Jeannie’s description and the overlap looks easily noticeable. Jeannie wasn’t a dentist. Any overlapping of John’s teeth would have been fairly easy to spot I’d have thought. I can’t see anyone meeting the John Templeton in the photo and noting an overlap.


Like Barn I certainly recommend this book. Was John Templeton Bible John? I tend to think not but he could have been. He’s certainly of interest. My money is still on John Irvine McInnes but will we ever get to the truth? Probably not. I’d like to see Audrey Gillan and Marcello Mega write a really heavyweight book on the subject though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree. The impression I got from the podcast last year is that the business card is what led to McInnes's being questioned to begin with, so if the card did not exist, why was he (or he and his fellow employees) even contacted?

Hi Roger,

The cold case team found evidence that 2 days after the Puttock murder a team was sent out to Stonehouse. The first thing to notice was that this wasn’t just a mid-ranking Officer or two this group included DSupt’s Joe Beattie and To. Valentine. Apparently their first port of call was Sandy McInnes (John Irving’s cousin) Sandy recalled the visit and said the reason for it was that a Moylan’s card had been found.

[rjpalmer]

Given that John McInnes was interviewed along with two fellow employees I think it is reasonable to believe such a card was found.

I agree. The impression I got from the podcast last year is that the business card is what led to McInnes's being questioned to begin with, so if the card did not exist, why was he (or he and his fellow employees) even contacted?

[rjpalmer]

I don't know if the author is making a bit of a stretch with this point, but it seems clear that compositors were more than just manual workers.

Thanks for the links, Barn. I used to know a printer many years ago who owned and operated a linotype machine and showed me the basics of how it worked. They were really quite amazing machines--masterpieces of engineering.

Each to his or her own, but I still find it quite a stretch to believe that any printer would describe himself as working in a laboratory, any more than an auto mechanic or a skilled wood worker would, but I'll leave it at that.

[barnflatwyngarde]

This is a point that I was going to make Barn. The book is very good but I wonder if the author is sometimes guilty of putting a little too much weight on Press reports?

This point is curious imo. Was the DNA sample simply not good enough for a clear result (as I’d believed) or was McInnes exonerated as the author appears to confidently believe? In ‘A New Suspect’ on page 86 the author says that the family were told in 1996 via the Glasgow Herald that McInnes wasn’t the killer. That he had been comprehensively cleared. She then says that years later, to quell any doubts, Anthony Busuttil, who was the pathologist who represented the McInnes family said “the person we exhumed was not the person that was being looked for in terms of the Bible John crimes.” DI Little of Strathclyde Police apparently also said that the DNA was not McInnes’s.

So from this the author clearly states her belief that John Irvine McInnes couldn’t have been the killer. However the actual DNA testing was done by Erika Hegelberg and she said that the results couldn’t implicate or exonerate him. This is confirmed by Marie Cassidy who was pathologist for The Crown at the exhumation (as Busuttil represented the family) In her book she said “Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the laboratory could not get a full profile and the results were described as inconclusive.”

Bavin-Mizzi has clearly done a lot of commendable research and the book certainly strikes me as an honest one (she doesn’t appear to be trying to fit someone up) but it’s difficult to see how it can be claimed that the DNA rules out McInnes?

You are bang on Herlock!

I think that the confusion comes from a report in The Glasgow Herald of 5th July 1996 which says:

"The Cambridge scientists concluded the DNA sequence taken from Mr McInnes's thigh bone was different from that taken by Strathclyde Police from Mrs Puttock's tights and similar DNA taken from the same source."

However, later on in the same article we have a direct quote from the Cambridge scientists which says:

"Due to the age and bad state of preservation of the biological evidence, particularly the semen stain, we concluded that there is not sufficient evidence from the current DNA information to link John McInnes to the scene of the murder of Helen Puttock.
The results of these DNA provided no evidence to suggest that the semen stain or hair left near the body of Helen Puttock originated from John McInnes."

Reading these two statements it is clear that the DNA testing did not exonerate John McInnes.

The report from the Cambridge scientists clearly says that "there is not sufficient evidence" to link McInnes to the murder of helen Puttock.

If Mr Busutti was representing the McInnes family, it is perhaps not surprising that he tried to put a positive spin on it for the family.

However, there is a huge difference between saying that John Mcinnes "was not the person that was being looked for in terms of the Bible John murders" and there being "not sufficient evidence."

Also note that the report mentions a hair was found near to the body of Helen Puttock.
I have not seen this mentioned anywhere else.

The author clearly does rely a lot on newspaper reports, but in the absence of official reports it is understandable.
There is even some confusion whether any of the victims were raped.

[cobalt]

If the author states confidently that MacInnes was 'clearly NOT' Bible John, what is her evidence for that bold statement?

Has she established that the DNA links to Templeton's family are stronger than the DNA links to McInnes' family?

If Templeton (who does not appear to resemble the famous BJ picture) is the guilty party then we are faced with a number of strange coincidences. Both McInnes and Templeton (did they know each other?) were patrons of the Barrowland Dance Hall on over 25s night. Both men liked to quote from the bible on occasion. And Templeton's relative McInnes, despite being completely innocent, was actually interviewed by police soon after the murder of Helen Puttock since an advertising card from his company had been found near the scene.*

Yet John Templeton, whose very name should surely have made him a person of interest in addition to his attendance at the Barrowland, was not contacted by police? Or was he contacted and for some spurious reason eliminated?

* I have read that there is no police record of an advertising card having been found, but that this was mentioned to police detectives conducting a cold case review in 1995. Given that John McInnes was interviewed along with two fellow employees I think it is reasonable to believe such a card was found. I think HS indicated that one source for this story was a journalist called Marcello. That would likely be Marcello Mega who did some good investigative work on the Dunblane Massacre of schoolchildren. I had phone contact with Mega several years ago when he worked at The Scotsman and could vouch for his accuracy. I recall he phoned me back to double check quotations he intended to use from me in an article.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes Herlock, the matter of the red purse jumped out at me.

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else.
I've been in contact with Bavin-Mizzi, and I will email her to see if she can provide a source for this, although I suspect it was probably sourced from a newspaper.
The obvious issue here is how much can we trust reports in the newspapers?

This is a point that I was going to make Barn. The book is very good but I wonder if the author is sometimes guilty of putting a little too much weight on Press reports?

This point is curious imo. Was the DNA sample simply not good enough for a clear result (as I’d believed) or was McInnes exonerated as the author appears to confidently believe? In ‘A New Suspect’ on page 86 the author says that the family were told in 1996 via the Glasgow Herald that McInnes wasn’t the killer. That he had been comprehensively cleared. She then says that years later, to quell any doubts, Anthony Busuttil, who was the pathologist who represented the McInnes family said “the person we exhumed was not the person that was being looked for in terms of the Bible John crimes.” DI Little of Strathclyde Police apparently also said that the DNA was not McInnes’s.

So from this the author clearly states her belief that John Irvine McInnes couldn’t have been the killer. However the actual DNA testing was done by Erika Hegelberg and she said that the results couldn’t implicate or exonerate him. This is confirmed by Marie Cassidy who was pathologist for The Crown at the exhumation (as Busuttil represented the family) In her book she said “Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the laboratory could not get a full profile and the results were described as inconclusive.”

Bavin-Mizzi has clearly done a lot of commendable research and the book certainly strikes me as an honest one (she doesn’t appear to be trying to fit someone up) but it’s difficult to see how it can be claimed that the DNA rules out McInnes?

[barnflatwyngarde]

I should be close to finishing the book tonight with a bit of luck. A question for you (or anyone) Barn. Helen Puttock went out with a red purse that night. On page 44 the author says that the disheveled man on the number 6 bus paid his fair from a red purse. This is hugely significant of course but I hadn’t seen it written anywhere else. I used the search function on the books that I have and found no mention of this. I can’t recall if it might have been mentioned on the podcast but I’d have thought that such an important fact would have stuck in my memory? Is it familiar to you..or anyone else?

Yes Herlock, the matter of the red purse jumped out at me.

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else.
I've been in contact with Bavin-Mizzi, and I will email her to see if she can provide a source for this, although I suspect it was probably sourced from a newspaper.
The obvious issue here is how much can we trust reports in the newspapers?

[barnflatwyngarde]

In the published articles, it was reported that Templeton had worked as a printer's apprentice.

Did she give any rational for claiming this qualifies as having worked in a "laboratory type setting"?

Hi rj.

The author makes the point that in the late 1960's print compositors would be using the latest equipment such as lens arrangements, photo multipliers, cathode ray tubes etc.

She references a short film documentary "Linotype: The Film" (link attached) which shows compositors working with the latest equipment, which included microscopes and chemical baths.

There are two stills at 29.49 and 30.08 which look as if they were taken in the 1950's showing compositors wearing shirts and ties. And there are scenes in the film showing quite technical machines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDM-EbDCiQg&t=533s

I found another interesting site (link attached) where the writer details his early days as a press photographer and in his apprenticeship working across various areas, makes the point that there was a close connection between the print room, photographic development room etc.

https://pressphotohistory.com/jeff-wright-my-time-as-a-press-photographer-1960s-70s/

I don't know if the author is making a bit of a stretch with this point, but it seems clear that compositors were more than just manual workers.

Aplogies rj, but I'm going to use this post to include something I neglected to put in my previous post reviewing the book.

When the author talks about "Bryers Road" she is referring to Byres Road.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This new book by Jillian Bavin-Mizzi is a very welcome addition to the other books already published on the Bible John case.

Bible john is the name given to killer of three women in Glasgow between February 1968 and October 1969.
All three women had been at the Barrowland ballroom when they met their killer.
All the women had been battered and strangled, and all three women were menstruating.

The name of John McInnes enters the Bible John case in 1996, when Strathclyde Police presented a case to the Procurator Fiscal to exhume the body of John McInnes in order to carry out a DNA comparison with the DNA sample that was found on the body of the third victim Helen Puttock.
It is not known exactly why police homed in on John McInnes, but it has been reported that the Puttock DNA bore similarities to a relative of John McInnes.
Police obtained DNA from the son, brother and sister of John McInnes, and there were clear similarities to the Puttock DNA.
Unfortunately the DNA obtained from McInnes exhumation was so corrupted that no meaningful comparison could be made.

The basic premise of the book is that in the taxi with the third victim, Helen Puttock and her sister Jeannie, when the killer gave his name as John Templeton or Sempleson or Emerson, he may have been telling the truth.
And if he was, there would be some element of DNA similarities between the Mcinnes family line and the Templeton family line.

To this end the author trawled back through genealogical records to ascertain if there a point at which any of these three names intersected with the McInnes family tree.

Bavin-Mizzi's research did find a John Templeton whose family line crossed the McInnes fanily line in the seventh generation.
She states that "While John McInnes was clearly not Bible John, he was almost certainly related to him." (page 89)

Bavin Mizzi after some research found several John Templetons, but only one who satisfied the following criteria which are based on information shared by the killer during the taxy journey with Helen Puttock and her sister Jeannie:

• Name matched that given by the killer in the taxi.
• The name John Templeton exists among the ancestors of Hector and Janet McInnes, siblings whose DNA samples shares patterns with the DNA profile obtained from the body of Helen Puttock.
• Matches the age profile of the killer.
• Born in Glasgow with a Glaswegian accent.
• Was a foster child as surmised by the police.
• Familiarity with areas travelled in the taxi.
• Grew up with one sister.
• Worked in a laboratory type setting.
• Familiar with the Scotstoun area and the transport services available in the area.
• Lived within walking distance of the bus stop that the killer alighted from.

With regard to the movements of the killer after he got off the number 6 bus at Gray Street a short time after the murder of Helen Puttock, I have always been mystified by the oft repeated statement that the killer got off the bus at that point because he was making his way to the Govan ferry to cross the river to the south side of the city.
It is just as likely that the killer got off the bus at that particular stop because he was heading for home.
John Templeton at that time was living in Melrose Gardens, which was 1.1 miles away from Gray Street, a mere 20 minute walk.

Bavin-Mizzi makes a compelling case for the teeth of John Templeton bearing a striking similarity to the plaster cast of the killer's teeth (taken from a bite mark on the body of Helen Puttock).
The missing upper right tooth is evident in a picture of John Templeton.
What is also clear from the photographs of the plaster cast on page 234, is that the overlapping front teeth of the killer as described by Helen's sister Jeannie, appear to be only slightly misaligned.
The overlap is clearly not as pronounced as stated by other authors and as depicted in some artists impressions.

The book is very well sourced, with lots of references to primary sources, although the author is honest enough to admit that a major problem for any author trying to write about the case is the lack of access to official documents relating to the case.

I suppose that the book stands or falls on the genealogical connection between John Templeton and the McInnes family line, and the strength of the DNA connection between the Templeton family line and the McInnes family line.

Has Jillian Bavin-Mizzi definitively solved the Bible John murder case?
Absolutely not!

Has she made a convincing case for John Templeton to be considered a serious candidate for these horrific murders?
I think she has!

I should be close to finishing the book tonight with a bit of luck. A question for you (or anyone) Barn. Helen Puttock went out with a red purse that night. On page 44 the author says that the disheveled man on the number 6 bus paid his fair from a red purse. This is hugely significant of course but I hadn’t seen it written anywhere else. I used the search function on the books that I have and found no mention of this. I can’t recall if it might have been mentioned on the podcast but I’d have thought that such an important fact would have stuck in my memory? Is it familiar to you..or anyone else?

[rjpalmer]

[*]Worked in a laboratory type setting.

In the published articles, it was reported that Templeton had worked as a printer's apprentice.

Did she give any rational for claiming this qualifies as having worked in a "laboratory type setting"?

[barnflatwyngarde]

This new book by Jillian Bavin-Mizzi is a very welcome addition to the other books already published on the Bible John case.

Bible john is the name given to killer of three women in Glasgow between February 1968 and October 1969.
All three women had been at the Barrowland ballroom when they met their killer.
All the women had been battered and strangled, and all three women were menstruating.

The name of John McInnes enters the Bible John case in 1996, when Strathclyde Police presented a case to the Procurator Fiscal to exhume the body of John McInnes in order to carry out a DNA comparison with the DNA sample that was found on the body of the third victim Helen Puttock.
It is not known exactly why police homed in on John McInnes, but it has been reported that the Puttock DNA bore similarities to a relative of John McInnes.
Police obtained DNA from the son, brother and sister of John McInnes, and there were clear similarities to the Puttock DNA.
Unfortunately the DNA obtained from McInnes exhumation was so corrupted that no meaningful comparison could be made.

The basic premise of the book is that in the taxi with the third victim, Helen Puttock and her sister Jeannie, when the killer gave his name as John Templeton or Sempleson or Emerson, he may have been telling the truth.
And if he was, there would be some element of DNA similarities between the Mcinnes family line and the Templeton family line.

To this end the author trawled back through genealogical records to ascertain if there a point at which any of these three names intersected with the McInnes family tree.

Bavin-Mizzi's research did find a John Templeton whose family line crossed the McInnes fanily line in the seventh generation.
She states that "While John McInnes was clearly not Bible John, he was almost certainly related to him." (page 89)

Bavin Mizzi after some research found several John Templetons, but only one who satisfied the following criteria which are based on information shared by the killer during the taxy journey with Helen Puttock and her sister Jeannie:

• Name matched that given by the killer in the taxi.
• The name John Templeton exists among the ancestors of Hector and Janet McInnes, siblings whose DNA samples shares patterns with the DNA profile obtained from the body of Helen Puttock.
• Matches the age profile of the killer.
• Born in Glasgow with a Glaswegian accent.
• Was a foster child as surmised by the police.
• Familiarity with areas travelled in the taxi.
• Grew up with one sister.
• Worked in a laboratory type setting.
• Familiar with the Scotstoun area and the transport services available in the area.
• Lived within walking distance of the bus stop that the killer alighted from.

With regard to the movements of the killer after he got off the number 6 bus at Gray Street a short time after the murder of Helen Puttock, I have always been mystified by the oft repeated statement that the killer got off the bus at that point because he was making his way to the Govan ferry to cross the river to the south side of the city.
It is just as likely that the killer got off the bus at that particular stop because he was heading for home.
John Templeton at that time was living in Melrose Gardens, which was 1.1 miles away from Gray Street, a mere 20 minute walk.

Bavin-Mizzi makes a compelling case for the teeth of John Templeton bearing a striking similarity to the plaster cast of the killer's teeth (taken from a bite mark on the body of Helen Puttock).
The missing upper right tooth is evident in a picture of John Templeton.
What is also clear from the photographs of the plaster cast on page 234, is that the overlapping front teeth of the killer as described by Helen's sister Jeannie, appear to be only slightly misaligned.
The overlap is clearly not as pronounced as stated by other authors and as depicted in some artists impressions.

The book is very well sourced, with lots of references to primary sources, although the author is honest enough to admit that a major problem for any author trying to write about the case is the lack of access to official documents relating to the case.

I suppose that the book stands or falls on the genealogical connection between John Templeton and the McInnes family line, and the strength of the DNA connection between the Templeton family line and the McInnes family line.

Has Jillian Bavin-Mizzi definitively solved the Bible John murder case?
Absolutely not!

Has she made a convincing case for John Templeton to be considered a serious candidate for these horrific murders?
I think she has!

[Ms Diddles]

I read 72 pages and I’m very impressed so far.

Nice work Herlock!

That was a good time to pause it if you were sleep deprived.

There is a LOT of detailed genealogical information about to be presented.

It's fascinating but in places hard to follow (if you're knackered)!
.
I read it last night, but think it might merit more scrutiny so will likely re-read.

My first impressions of the book are positive too.

A lot of research has gone into it for sure!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, I started it last night and it's very readable so you may manage to stay awake.

I have a heavy weekend lined up, so it will likely be early next week before I'm able to get to grips with it and post any (coherent) thoughts.

I read 72 pages and I’m very impressed so far.

[Ms Diddles]

It has to be done Ms D but I suspect that I have an annoying evening ahead. I had to get up insanely early this morning and when I get to start reading I’m guessing that it will be near 8.00. I just know that as I’m trying to read something that I’ve been looking forward to I’ll be nodding off every few seconds. I’ll probably get through 10 pages in three hours before giving up.

Well, I started it last night and it's very readable so you may manage to stay awake.

I have a heavy weekend lined up, so it will likely be early next week before I'm able to get to grips with it and post any (coherent) thoughts.