Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[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]

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

Ridiculously expensive pints of warm beer too.

[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

[cobalt]

I haven't access to Jill Bavin-Mizzi's book so can only sum up my thoughts based on what I have read on this site. Both Ms Diddles and Barn have been very helpful in that regard.

1. If JBM can't place Templeton in the Barrowland Ballroom then she is putting all her eggs in the DNA basket. It's not enough to say that he met his wife in a dance hall: half of the married men in Glasgow could have said that back in the 1960s. Without a previous friend or work colleague to confirm that Templeton was an occasional patron of the Barrowland then her case is seriously weakened.

2. Jeannie was insistent that BJ was slightly old fashioned for the time in terms of his hair and overall appearance. The photo on this site of Templeton, from I think 1967, shows a man very much 'with it' in terms of his hair styling and modest sideburns. (Peter Tobin has a similar look in one of his contemporary photos.) In the following period when the murders took place, hair and sideburns generally became longer and, being guided by Templeton's snazzy appearance as described by Barn, I can't see him not following the trend. This would put him even further away from the staid BJ look captured in the famous portrait.

3. The former Mrs. Templeton's equanimity concerning her husband possibly being a serial killer has been commented on by others. It is decidedly strange since we would assume a wife to be either strenuously in denial she shared her bed with such a man or alternatively she might want to 'stick the knife in' as a form of posthumous revenge.

What is missing surely is an account of the wife racking her brains in terms of times and dates of the murders, wondering if it could possibly be him. As a newly married wife she would have been very observant about her husband's movements; the fastidious Templeton doesn't come across as a person likely to return from a lad's night out minus a cuff link with scratches on his face. Most newly married men didn't often go out without their wives in any case. He must have aroused some suspicion on a general level at the time, irrespective of the BJ case, if he was returning home alone in such condition. After all, Templeton wasn't working as a taxi driver or a bouncer.

Obviously it is difficult to remember exact times and dates so many years later, but a young married couple have many helpful landmarks to tie down the calendar in terms of children being born, moving house, holidays etc. In my experience whilst men can accurately date earlier events by reference to football matches and work situations, women are very strong on family matters. It's odd that the ex-Mrs. Templeton does not appear to have gone down this road.

4. If Templeton was indeed BJ, where does that leave the Moylan's furniture advertising card found at the scene of the Helen Puttock murder? Did Templeton discover it as a marker in a library book and decide to carry it on his person?

[barnflatwyngarde]

I haven't access to Jill Bavin-Mizzi's book so can only sum up my thoughts based on what I have read on this site. Both Ms Diddles and Barn have been very helpful in that regard.

1. If JBM can't place Templeton in the Barrowland Ballroom then she is putting all her eggs in the DNA basket. It's not enough to say that he met his wife in a dance hall: half of the married men in Glasgow could have said that back in the 1960s. Without a previous friend or work colleague to confirm that Templeton was an occasional patron of the Barrowland then her case is seriously weakened.

2. Jeannie was insistent that BJ was slightly old fashioned for the time in terms of his hair and overall appearance. The photo on this site of Templeton, from I think 1967, shows a man very much 'with it' in terms of his hair styling and modest sideburns. (Peter Tobin has a similar look in one of his contemporary photos.) In the following period when the murders took place, hair and sideburns generally became longer and, being guided by Templeton's snazzy appearance as described by Barn, I can't see him not following the trend. This would put him even further away from the staid BJ look captured in the famous portrait.

3. The former Mrs. Templeton's equanimity concerning her husband possibly being a serial killer has been commented on by others. It is decidedly strange since we would assume a wife to be either strenuously in denial she shared her bed with such a man or alternatively she might want to 'stick the knife in' as a form of posthumous revenge.

What is missing surely is an account of the wife racking her brains in terms of times and dates of the murders, wondering if it could possibly be him. As a newly married wife she would have been very observant about her husband's movements; the fastidious Templeton doesn't come across as a person likely to return from a lad's night out minus a cuff link with scratches on his face. Most newly married men didn't often go out without their wives in any case. He must have aroused some suspicion on a general level at the time, irrespective of the BJ case, if he was returning home alone in such condition. After all, Templeton wasn't working as a taxi driver or a bouncer.

Obviously it is difficult to remember exact times and dates so many years later, but a young married couple have many helpful landmarks to tie down the calendar in terms of children being born, moving house, holidays etc. In my experience whilst men can accurately date earlier events by reference to football matches and work situations, women are very strong on family matters. It's odd that the ex-Mrs. Templeton does not appear to have gone down this road.

4. If Templeton was indeed BJ, where does that leave the Moylan's furniture advertising card found at the scene of the Helen Puttock murder? Did Templeton discover it as a marker in a library book and decide to carry it on his person?

Hi cobalt, you are correct in saying that we cannot definitely place Templeton at the Barrowland, while we can possibly place McInnes at the Barrowland via the evidence of Mrs Palka and someone called Jessie who sang at the Barrowland. It is very possible that Mrs Palka and Jessie are the same person.

I am not sure about your second point regarding the killers dress sense and style. It seems to me to be one of the many "unknowable" aspects of the case.

I agree with you re Mrs Templeton's attitude to being interviewed by Ms Bavin-Mizzi. It is almost as if she had no view either way regarding the possibilty that her husband had been a killer. Very strange!

The Moylan's card is a pivotal piece of evidence that simply refuses to go away, and we know that the police regarded it as important.

To my mind all roads still lead to Stonehouse and John McInnes, although we should bear in mind that the police today have not excluded Templeton from the case.
Remember that they swabbed the locker that John Templeton used in the Mitchell Library on the basis of the case Bavin-Mizzi made in her book.

[cobalt]

Hi Barn,

I thought we could definitely place McInnes at the Barrowland on the night Helen Puttock was murdered. Did he not admit this to the police when interviewed?

If I'm right then this is much more significant than the claim that Templeton might have attended the Barrowland at some point, time unknown. McInnes would also have been one of three men possibly carrying Moylan advertising cards on the night in question.

[Ms Diddles]

I haven't access to Jill Bavin-Mizzi's book so can only sum up my thoughts based on what I have read on this site. Both Ms Diddles and Barn have been very helpful in that regard.

1. If JBM can't place Templeton in the Barrowland Ballroom then she is putting all her eggs in the DNA basket. It's not enough to say that he met his wife in a dance hall: half of the married men in Glasgow could have said that back in the 1960s. Without a previous friend or work colleague to confirm that Templeton was an occasional patron of the Barrowland then her case is seriously weakened.

2. Jeannie was insistent that BJ was slightly old fashioned for the time in terms of his hair and overall appearance. The photo on this site of Templeton, from I think 1967, shows a man very much 'with it' in terms of his hair styling and modest sideburns. (Peter Tobin has a similar look in one of his contemporary photos.) In the following period when the murders took place, hair and sideburns generally became longer and, being guided by Templeton's snazzy appearance as described by Barn, I can't see him not following the trend. This would put him even further away from the staid BJ look captured in the famous portrait.

3. The former Mrs. Templeton's equanimity concerning her husband possibly being a serial killer has been commented on by others. It is decidedly strange since we would assume a wife to be either strenuously in denial she shared her bed with such a man or alternatively she might want to 'stick the knife in' as a form of posthumous revenge.

What is missing surely is an account of the wife racking her brains in terms of times and dates of the murders, wondering if it could possibly be him. As a newly married wife she would have been very observant about her husband's movements; the fastidious Templeton doesn't come across as a person likely to return from a lad's night out minus a cuff link with scratches on his face. Most newly married men didn't often go out without their wives in any case. He must have aroused some suspicion on a general level at the time, irrespective of the BJ case, if he was returning home alone in such condition. After all, Templeton wasn't working as a taxi driver or a bouncer.

Obviously it is difficult to remember exact times and dates so many years later, but a young married couple have many helpful landmarks to tie down the calendar in terms of children being born, moving house, holidays etc. In my experience whilst men can accurately date earlier events by reference to football matches and work situations, women are very strong on family matters. It's odd that the ex-Mrs. Templeton does not appear to have gone down this road.

4. If Templeton was indeed BJ, where does that leave the Moylan's furniture advertising card found at the scene of the Helen Puttock murder? Did Templeton discover it as a marker in a library book and decide to carry it on his person?

Hi Cobalt,

If you ever get the opportunity I would urge you to read JBM' s book.

That said, I've read it and been quite impressed by it, but in the main I would still concur with your points above.

Re point 3 - Jill struck me as being a smart cookie with a lot of integrity. I think it's entirely possible that there are elements of her conversation with June that she has not made public.

If there was anything definitive like June recalling her husband coming home in the early hours dishevelled with a scratched face for example, I'm sure we would know about it though.

Whatever passed between the two women during that conversation, Jill came away feeling certain that she was on the right track

I think it's possible that there were more subtle elements to the conversation which were perhaps deeply personal or too intangible to note.

It was apparent that Jill was extremely nervous before her meeting with June and almost expected her theory to go up in smoke, but actually the opposite happened.

I would have loved to be a fly on that wall!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies for this quick side track but I was just reminded of this point as I’ve begun to re-read Bible John: A New Suspect. It’s just an example of mixed messages and “who to believe?” On the question of the DNA comparison after the exhumation.

Anthony Busuttil, who oversaw the exhumation on behalf of the McInnes family (and the Lockerbie investigation btw) said “the person we exhumed was not the person that was being looked for in terms of the Bible John crimes.” DI Billy Little from Strathclyde police said “I can tell you that the DNA stain recovered on the clothing of Helen Puttock is not John McInnes’s.”

But…Dr Marie Cassidy, who was forensic pathologist for the Crown said “Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the laboratory could not get a full profile and the results were described as inconclusive. The Barrowland serial killer had not been identified and remains unidentified to this day.”

Two entirely different messages. Isn’t this case difficult enough?

Apologies for the tangent.

[Ms Diddles]

Apologies for this quick side track but I was just reminded of this point as I’ve begun to re-read Bible John: A New Suspect. It’s just an example of mixed messages and “who to believe?” On the question of the DNA comparison after the exhumation.

Anthony Busuttil, who oversaw the exhumation on behalf of the McInnes family (and the Lockerbie investigation btw) said “the person we exhumed was not the person that was being looked for in terms of the Bible John crimes.” DI Billy Little from Strathclyde police said “I can tell you that the DNA stain recovered on the clothing of Helen Puttock is not John McInnes’s.”

But…Dr Marie Cassidy, who was forensic pathologist for the Crown said “Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the laboratory could not get a full profile and the results were described as inconclusive. The Barrowland serial killer had not been identified and remains unidentified to this day.”

Two entirely different messages. Isn’t this case difficult enough?

Apologies for the tangent.

Exactly Herlock!

For me, this is the crux of the matter.

JBM has evidently opted for Busuttil / Little, but as you've just shown, there is reason to be doubtful.

Could there be a middle ground?

A full profile couldn't be obtained, but what they had was enough to eliminate McInnes???

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly Herlock!

For me, this is the crux of the matter.

JBM has evidently opted for Busuttil / Little, but as you've just shown, there is reason to be doubtful.

Could there be a middle ground?

A full profile couldn't be obtained, but what they had was enough to eliminate McInnes???

I’m unsure Ms D, but it’s difficult to see how someone like Cassidy could have misinterpreted it (or Busuttil for that matter). I just don’t know enough about DNA but it does seem a strange divergence of opinion if that’s what it is because the difference is so significant or at least potentially significant. Maybe it might have come down to opinion with Cassidy thinking that there was enough there to keep the possibility open. It’s interesting though that after receiving samples from the siblings (McInnes brother Hector and his sister Janet) the police were excited at the results. They used phrases like phrases like “a direct hit” and “a match,” so they clearly thought that they were onto a winner after being advised by the scientists. It’s a big step for a judge to allow an exhumation. Something was convincing. It’s a mystery.