Bible John (General Discussion)

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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?

[Ms Diddles]

Barn’s shady connections in the Scottish Library underworld coming good I see Ms D. A strange handshake and a haggis in a brown paper parcel handed over by a man in a raincoat and sunglasses at a bus stop at 2am in Glasgow. Yes we all know how it works.

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!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Tom,

I am also re-reading this book now in preparation for attending the author's talk in June (many thanks for blagging me in, Barn! ).

I'd be really interested to know your thoughts when you've read it too!

Barn’s shady connections in the Scottish Library underworld coming good I see Ms D. A strange handshake and a haggis in a brown paper parcel handed over by a man in a raincoat and sunglasses at a bus stop at 2am in Glasgow. Yes we all know how it works.

[Ms Diddles]

Thought I'd jump in to say the new Bible John book is FINALLY available here in the states, so I bought the Kindle version and began reading it last night. Had to tear myself away to go to bed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I am also re-reading this book now in preparation for attending the author's talk in June (many thanks for blagging me in, Barn! ).

I'd be really interested to know your thoughts when you've read it too!

[Ms Diddles]

Does this cast doubt on the famous/infamous drawing of the Bible John suspect by Paterson ? Link - https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...trait-24553715

Did Paterson subconsciously lead Jean on with certain features because it was how he drew etc ?
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the case can make sense of it but the figure [ Simon ], in his earlier painting does seem to bear a striking likeness . Its almost as if Paterson has aged the boy from his previous work .

Regards Darryl

Interesting article, Darryl!

To my eye the two people depicted in the portraits don't look that similar aside from their red hair and pale skin.

I think the similarities are perhaps accentuated by Paterson's technique and use of colour, but the features are quite different.

Out of curiosity I checked out some more of his work and found a couple of other portraits.

They are all quite distinct, so I don't get the impression that he was one of those artists who just paint the same person over and over again.

(Gainsborough, I'm talking to you!!!).

Of course this is just my entirely subjective opinion.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Barn. I only know about it now from reading the book the last two days. Here in the states, Bible John is unknown. He's appeared in a couple of anthology books I own. I'm not sure any of the books on Bible John have ever been published in the states. If so, they haven't come my way. Bavin-Mizzi's book will be the first full-length treatment I've read.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[barnflatwyngarde]

Thought I'd jump in to say the new Bible John book is FINALLY available here in the states, so I bought the Kindle version and began reading it last night. Had to tear myself away to go to bed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,
I would be genuinely interested to know what you make of Jill Bavin-Mizzi's book.

A fabulous podcast on the Bible John case was put out by Audrey Gillan.
It contains lots of fascinating, and new, facts about the case.

You may already be aware of it, If not I attach a link below.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0d3f8jl

[Tom_Wescott]

Thought I'd jump in to say the new Bible John book is FINALLY available here in the states, so I bought the Kindle version and began reading it last night. Had to tear myself away to go to bed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Darryl,

It’s difficult to see why George Puttock thinks that the earlier portrait proves that the one done from Jean’s description isn’t valid. There are some similarities but I think the pose can accentuate that. I can’t see the police getting a portrait done without Jean’s seal of approval. They were desperate to catch the killer after all.

He says that they placed too much reliance on Jean but they really had little choice. They would have tried to locate Castlemilk John but he never came forward. He left them earlier to catch a bus but he’d have seen ‘John.’ It’s possible that he was married and had told his wife that he was out for a pint with his mates at not at a singles night at Barrowlands. Either that or he just didn’t want to get involved.

During the Cold Case investigation the police found that the taxi driver had been shown a photograph of John Irvine McInness and ID’d it as the ‘John’ in his taxi with Jean and Helen. It’s a head-scratcher of a case Darryl. And now we have a new suspect.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Does this cast doubt on the famous/infamous drawing of the Bible John suspect by Paterson ? Link - https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...trait-24553715

Was Jean Langford even there when the picture was drawn, or did he draw from her testimony ? Did Paterson subconsciously lead Jean on with certain features because it was how he drew etc ?
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the case can make sense of it but the figure [ Simon ], in his earlier painting does seem to bear a striking likeness . Its almost as if Paterson has aged the boy from his previous work .

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just back from the gym, and as I slowly recover I decided to play around with AI.
I asked Grok who was the main suspect in the Bible John murders.
I was surprised when it said John Templeton.
Nothing definitive of course, but I found it interesting.

Does AI know something that we don’t Barn?