Bible John (General Discussion)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,
According to John Templeton's wife June, the two detectives turned up approx' 6 months after Helen Puttock's murder.

That would put it around April/May 1970.

Does that seem a long time to you to find a Templeton? It does to me Barn.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Does that seem a long time to you to find a Templeton? It does to me Barn.

It's strange that you say that!

A while ago I accessed an old Glasgow telephone directory and looked up how many Templeton's were listed.
It was a surprisingly low number, about 20 if I remember correctly.

So the police wouldn't have had a huge job tracking down anyone called Templeton, although I accept that there would be people called Templeton who didn't have a phone.

The only thing that I could think of was that the police dismissed the likelihood that the killer would give Helen and Jeannie his real name.
The police were armed with a great witness, Jeannie, and they had Lennox Paterson's photofit, which they thought was an excellent likeness, and probably thought that an arrest was imminent.

After about 5-6 months with no real progress, they were prepared to consider the possibility that perhaps the killer had in fact mistakenly given his real name.

Like so much in this case, it's another little enigma.

[cobalt]

That is a surprisingly low number for a recognisable Scottish name- one that traces its roots as far back as the Knights Templar. (I'll avoid the temptation to pursue a Free Masonic cover up here.) In 1969 every male Glaswegian by the age of 21 would have been on the electoral roll so tracking down Templetons, Emersons and Semples in the appropriate age range should have been a straight forward procedure for the police. Granted BJ, even if he had not set out intending to kill that evening, might still have used a false name: but never look a gift horse in the mouth as the saying goes. The name 'Templeton' seems a stronger possible lead than hairdressers, clairvoyants or Joe Beattie's gut instinct.

Beattie's gut instinct regarding the Barrowland Ballroom seems suspect to me as well. A loner prowling the dance hall is hardly an attractive prospect therefore a man, whatever his motives, is likely to 'team up' in a loose association with another bloke to make himself appear more presentable. To some extent this seems to have happened with Castlemilk John, though possibly they interacted after having 'clicked' with Helen and Jeannie. Assuming this was not BJ's first visit to the Barrowland then he must have had a few interactions with other men before moving in to ask a woman for a dance. And his dancing partners could not have been limited to those we now consider to be his victims. So there should be more close witnesses to a man answering his description than we appear to have.

Beattie claimed he met reluctance from Barrowland patrons if not quite a wall of silence. The implication was that married men and women on a night out 'on the pull' clammed up rather than help the enquiry. Maybe so, but what about the policy of publicly declaring BJ a bogeyman: did that perhaps discourage patrons of the Barrowland from connecting a casual chat they'd had with BJ to the monster being sought?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's strange that you say that!

A while ago I accessed an old Glasgow telephone directory and looked up how many Templeton's were listed.
It was a surprisingly low number, about 20 if I remember correctly.

So the police wouldn't have had a huge job tracking down anyone called Templeton, although I accept that there would be people called Templeton who didn't have a phone.

The only thing that I could think of was that the police dismissed the likelihood that the killer would give Helen and Jeannie his real name.
The police were armed with a great witness, Jeannie, and they had Lennox Paterson's photofit, which they thought was an excellent likeness, and probably thought that an arrest was imminent.

After about 5-6 months with no real progress, they were prepared to consider the possibility that perhaps the killer had in fact mistakenly given his real name.

Like so much in this case, it's another little enigma.

That’s a possibility Barn and as we just don’t know it’s difficult to make a judgement. But after two murders, and with the police desperate for an arrest would they really have dismissed the suggestion that the killer had possibly given his real name just because it doesn’t sound likely (which I agree, it doesn’t of course)? I’d have thought that they might have considered that maybe the killer had believed that Jeannie might not have heard him and it wouldn’t have mattered that Helen had. It’s impossible to draw any solid conclusions though. Another one for the unanswered questions box?