Bible John (General Discussion)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Spot on Herlock!

The Don of the Scottish library world has come good!

I just need to assassinate his rivals at Scottish Museums and Art Galleries as payment!

For the purpose of clarification though, it was definitely a veggie haggis and not one of those horrible offal filled sheep intestine ones!

Isn’t veggie haggis considered the work of Satan in Scotland?

[Tom_Wescott]

I finished reading the book last night. Been a while since I saw that many notes and sources in a crime book! I thought it was fantastic. The author's approach was innovative and the amount of work she put into it was monumental. Is her John Templeton the real and true 'Bible John'? Perhaps. There's much to recommend him. However, it must be said that Bavin-Mizzi seems to take for granted that a) BJ actually said his name was Templeton. Jeanie said it was something like that and offered two alternative surnames, and b) That BJ was honest about his name. I saw in a documentary that some if not much of the detail Jeanie provided was whilst under hypnosis. I don't recall that being addressed in Bavin-Mizzi's book (I may have missed it) and that concerns me. Bavin-Mizzi also takes for granted that the DNA results from the 1990s are accurate and that the result which led to the wrong identification of McInness as Bible John wasn't somehow corrupted, as was quite common at the time. In other words, if there's no familial connection between Bible John and McInnes at all, then her John Templeton is out of the frame.

Bavin-Mizzi's explanation for how BJ knew his victims were menstruating was sensible and even likely, though it begs the question why the police, press, and Jeanie herself, didn't suggest the 'sanitary towel as outerwear' idea at the time. I like it, though. That's one of the most intriguing elements of the case for me. I don't know why Bavin-Mizzi didn't address this subject when speaking to Templeton's ex, June. Or if she did address it, why she didn't publish June's responses. Had she admitted to Templeton having had a fetish for or repulsion of menstruation, it would have greatly advanced her suspect.

The fact that Suspect Templeton married shortly before the murders began and was apparently happy in his marriage throughout the period of the murders and beyond is not helpful to the case against Templeton. Based on BJ's comments and actions, he appears to be a man who PRIOR to the murder had been cuckolded. That certainly doesn't kill the theory but it was something I was looking for in her case against Templeton.

All in all, I think Bavin-Mizzi has done some brilliant work and I consider it a shame her work wasn't published by a major publisher and given the wider market it deserves. Her John Templeton should probably be considered the leading suspect at this time, but it falls short of being a conclusive identification. I would assume Scottish authorities are getting some of the best forensic genealogists on this case? If so, it should be only a matter of time before they conclusively identify Bible John.

I wish we had more cold case studies like Bavin-Mizzi's. Truly impressive, excellent stuff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[barnflatwyngarde]

I finished reading the book last night. Been a while since I saw that many notes and sources in a crime book! I thought it was fantastic. The author's approach was innovative and the amount of work she put into it was monumental. Is her John Templeton the real and true 'Bible John'? Perhaps. There's much to recommend him. However, it must be said that Bavin-Mizzi seems to take for granted that a) BJ actually said his name was Templeton. Jeanie said it was something like that and offered two alternative surnames, and b) That BJ was honest about his name. I saw in a documentary that some if not much of the detail Jeanie provided was whilst under hypnosis. I don't recall that being addressed in Bavin-Mizzi's book (I may have missed it) and that concerns me. Bavin-Mizzi also takes for granted that the DNA results from the 1990s are accurate and that the result which led to the wrong identification of McInness as Bible John wasn't somehow corrupted, as was quite common at the time. In other words, if there's no familial connection between Bible John and McInnes at all, then her John Templeton is out of the frame.

Bavin-Mizzi's explanation for how BJ knew his victims were menstruating was sensible and even likely, though it begs the question why the police, press, and Jeanie herself, didn't suggest the 'sanitary towel as outerwear' idea at the time. I like it, though. That's one of the most intriguing elements of the case for me. I don't know why Bavin-Mizzi didn't address this subject when speaking to Templeton's ex, June. Or if she did address it, why she didn't publish June's responses. Had she admitted to Templeton having had a fetish for or repulsion of menstruation, it would have greatly advanced her suspect.

The fact that Suspect Templeton married shortly before the murders began and was apparently happy in his marriage throughout the period of the murders and beyond is not helpful to the case against Templeton. Based on BJ's comments and actions, he appears to be a man who PRIOR to the murder had been cuckolded. That certainly doesn't kill the theory but it was something I was looking for in her case against Templeton.

All in all, I think Bavin-Mizzi has done some brilliant work and I consider it a shame her work wasn't published by a major publisher and given the wider market it deserves. Her John Templeton should probably be considered the leading suspect at this time, but it falls short of being a conclusive identification. I would assume Scottish authorities are getting some of the best forensic genealogists on this case? If so, it should be only a matter of time before they conclusively identify Bible John.

I wish we had more cold case studies like Bavin-Mizzi's. Truly impressive, excellent stuff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks for this insightful analysis of Jill's book Tom.

I absolutely agree about the large number of sources and references in the book.
It is a major source of frustration re this case, that none of the few books published on the Bible John case have detailed sources and references where readers can check out assertions made by the authors.

I communicated with Audrey Gillan re Bavin-Mizzi's book, and Audrey made the, not entirely unfair, comment that Bavin-Mizzi's basic premise that the killer gave his real name to Helen Puttock and her sister Jean was "a bit of a stretch."

However it is the other tantalising bits of information that Jill lays out that means that we cannot dismiss John Templeton as a viable suspect:

• The gap in the teeth.
• Templeton's flat being close to where the disheveled man got off the bus.
• His upbringing in the religious house of his foster parents.
• The fact that he had an adoptive sister (the killer made reference to a sister in the taxi with Helen and Jean)

I don't know if John Templeton was the killer, there is just so much linking John McInnes to the case that I can't quite get my head round.
The revelations that Audrey Gillan detailed in her excellent podcast raise so many questions re McInnes that can't be brushed aside.

Ms Diddles is going to a talk by Jill Bavin-Mizzi in June, I am sure that Ms D will ask quite a few searching questions and report back.

Thanks once again Tom for this excellent contribution.

Frustratingly, the definitive book on this fascinating case has still to be written.

[Tom_Wescott]

It's always a bit of a stretch, isn't it? You could say she was speculating, but it's responsible speculation. Her innovation was then turning to the DNA evidence fromt he 1990s and seeing where/how that may guide her. What Bavin-Mizzi has done right is she spent a lot of time becoming familiar with the case, its inner workings and nuances, and then she used what insight she'd developed to generate her own leads, which she then followed up, not knowing where they may lead or if they'd lead anywhere. In her mind, they did. I can't commend her enough for that. If nothing else, she gave us a very interesting book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[cobalt]

Tom has identified a couple of areas where he feels more might have been gleaned from John Templeton's former wife. I don't have a copy of the book so I am not sure if the former Mrs. Templeton is happy to bury/praise her former husband or to adopt a neutral stance. However there are two other aspects that I think she might have been able to shed some light on.

My impression of Templeton is very dependent on information supplied on this site by Barn, who had actually worked briefly alongside him in a public library. Templeton seems to have been quite a dapper, punctilious individual and unlikely to have finished off a night out on the town by brawling in the streets. So if this recently married man came home in a dishevelled state during the early hours of the morning then I think his wife would have remembered that. She might have had no reason to suspect him of involvement at the time but the Helen Puttock murder was a kind of landmark in terms of dates and she may, in hindsight, have made a connection years later.

The second area relates to a major weakness in the 'Templeton as BJ' theory: I don't think the author has any evidence that Templeton ever crossed the threshold of the Barrowland Ballroom. We know that he met his wife at the Majestic Ballroom and of course he was hardly likely to tell his wife if he was later 'guesting' at the Barrowland. But again, going by Barn's recollections, the Barrowland seems a bit downmarket for Templeton. Hobnobbing with the likes of McInnes and Tobin hardly seems his scene. His wife might have been able to offer some general information about the types of places he favoured and the company he preferred to keep.

My last point is unconnected to the above. If Templeton was the killer then the Moylan's Furniture Store advertising card is a red herring. It might well be. We know there were three members of that company on the dance floor the evening of Helen Puttock's murder and they could have been dishing out cards quite liberally. (Should the police not have established whether this was the case?) Helen herself might have been handed one and put it in her handbag, or even picked one up that was lying on a table.
However the fact that a Moylan's card was reportedly discovered at the scene of the murder points more to it being dislodged from a pocket during a struggle, and that was unlikely to be Helen's coat pocket since I assume she would have left her coat in the cloakroom before going off to dance. (Again, I am not sure if this has been established.) So more likely it was either handed to her as she was collecting her coat before leaving, or it came from the jacket of her killer.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to Police Scotland asking for a listing of any convictions for John Irvine McInnes.

I know that when dealing with large government organisations it can be problematic when trying to get access to information, but I thought I would give it a go.

I also asked if any such records existed, or provide any summary or redacted information that could be released in the public interest.

I received a reply yesterday which says:

I refer to your recent correspondence seeking information about a deceased person.
Any FOI response is a public disclosure and so it is not usually possible to disclose information about particular individuals or related police involvement and/ or investigations.
In terms of section 18 of the Act, I am refusing to confirm or deny whether the information sought is held by Police Scotland.
The public interest overwhelmingly lies in protecting individuals’ right to privacy and honouring their expectation of confidentiality - even in death.
Furthermore, any information held for the purpose of a police investigation is exempt from disclosure in terms of section 34(1) of the Act and section 35(1)(a)&(b) would also apply insofar as disclosure of any such information would be prejudicial to the law enforcement role of Police Scotland more generally.

It seems that the main reason for denying the request is to preserve the privacy and right to confidentiality of a dead man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to Police Scotland asking for a listing of any convictions for John Irvine McInnes.

I know that when dealing with large government organisations it can be problematic when trying to get access to information, but I thought I would give it a go.

I also asked if any such records existed, or provide any summary or redacted information that could be released in the public interest.

I received a reply yesterday which says:

I refer to your recent correspondence seeking information about a deceased person.
Any FOI response is a public disclosure and so it is not usually possible to disclose information about particular individuals or related police involvement and/ or investigations.
In terms of section 18 of the Act, I am refusing to confirm or deny whether the information sought is held by Police Scotland.
The public interest overwhelmingly lies in protecting individuals’ right to privacy and honouring their expectation of confidentiality - even in death.
Furthermore, any information held for the purpose of a police investigation is exempt from disclosure in terms of section 34(1) of the Act and section 35(1)(a)&(b) would also apply insofar as disclosure of any such information would be prejudicial to the law enforcement role of Police Scotland more generally.

It seems that the main reason for denying the request is to preserve the privacy and right to confidentiality of a dead man.

Thanks for trying though Barn

[Herlock Sholmes]

In these cases we often use phrase “what are the chances of….?” So in that time-honoured tradition

What are the chances of…the police having someone that they considered a strong suspect at the time and then years later the real killer is found and it’s discovered that he has a familial/DNA link to the police’s original suspect?

Like Tom and Barn I really do admire Bavin-Mizzi’s research and I think that Templeton is genuinely worthy of consideration but…that would be some coincidence wouldn’t it?

[barnflatwyngarde]

In these cases we often use phrase “what are the chances of….?” So in that time-honoured tradition

What are the chances of…the police having someone that they considered a strong suspect at the time and then years later the real killer is found and it’s discovered that he has a familial/DNA link to the police’s original suspect?

Like Tom and Barn I really do admire Bavin-Mizzi’s research and I think that Templeton is genuinely worthy of consideration but…that would be some coincidence wouldn’t it?

Absolutely!
It's like the amateur group of historians who thought that the body of Richard III was under a council car park.

Go figure!

[Ms Diddles]

I recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to Police Scotland asking for a listing of any convictions for John Irvine McInnes.

I know that when dealing with large government organisations it can be problematic when trying to get access to information, but I thought I would give it a go.

I also asked if any such records existed, or provide any summary or redacted information that could be released in the public interest.

I received a reply yesterday which says:

I refer to your recent correspondence seeking information about a deceased person.
Any FOI response is a public disclosure and so it is not usually possible to disclose information about particular individuals or related police involvement and/ or investigations.
In terms of section 18 of the Act, I am refusing to confirm or deny whether the information sought is held by Police Scotland.
The public interest overwhelmingly lies in protecting individuals’ right to privacy and honouring their expectation of confidentiality - even in death.
Furthermore, any information held for the purpose of a police investigation is exempt from disclosure in terms of section 34(1) of the Act and section 35(1)(a)&(b) would also apply insofar as disclosure of any such information would be prejudicial to the law enforcement role of Police Scotland more generally.

It seems that the main reason for denying the request is to preserve the privacy and right to confidentiality of a dead man.

Good effort, Barn!

I'm sorry it didn't pan out, but it was definitely worth a shot.

[cobalt]

The public interest overwhelmingly lies in protecting individuals’ right to privacy and honouring their expectation of confidentiality - even in death.

That's some load of bollocks. If you had enquired about Peter Manuel you would have received the same response judging by their logic.

Police convictions are part of the public record: the two alleged fraud convictions against McInnes would have been held in open court and possibly reported in the local newspaper. There is no right to privacy for lawbreakers.

Note that when a high profile conviction is obtained, the police themselves have no hesitation in supplying the media with a complete criminal back history of the guilty party.

[barnflatwyngarde]

That's some load of bollocks. If you had enquired about Peter Manuel you would have received the same response judging by their logic.

Police convictions are part of the public record: the two alleged fraud convictions against McInnes would have been held in open court and possibly reported in the local newspaper. There is no right to privacy for lawbreakers.

Note that when a high profile conviction is obtained, the police themselves have no hesitation in supplying the media with a complete criminal back history of the guilty party.

Absolutely cobalt, spt on!

The thought that ran through my head was that if I had submitted an FOI Request about Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, it would have been refused on the basis that to grant it would have breached their "right to privacy" and "their expectation of confidentiality".

Staggering!

[New Waterloo]

A couple of points. If John Templeton is BJ then its quite a coincidence that we have Castlemilk John, John Templeton in the taxi and a really good suspect John McInnes. So often we fall down on the side of coincidence but that Templeton man adds another John into the frame. Although it is a common name of course.
Whoever BJ was, whilst in the club he introduced to Jeannie as 'John' I suggest that if McInnes was the man in the taxi (BJ) when asked his name he would use the surname Templeton as working for a while in various furniture shops including Moylans he would be very aware of Templeton carpets in Glasgow and picked that name as it came into his head quicker than others. I am not sure if the route in the taxi went past the carpet factory but if it did that may have been the prompt.

Also I am also dumfounded by the police being resistant to them releasing details of previous convictions but perhaps there is an answer. It has always amazed me that convictions take place in court where the public and the press have access and are then reported on through newspapers, TV and Radio yet are seen as confidential when the police are approached.

Possibly it is because they are not the primary holder of the information and feel (and under law) it is not their place to divulge such things. But are there not court records and are they accessible to the public. Perhaps a request would be better aimed at them but I am not really sure who would be responsible for court records.

NW