MAY I add a postscript to R Russell Smith’s mention of the renowned Dr John Glaister’s involvement in solving the famous Ruxton case (Letters, March 7)? In the early 1950s, as part of my law degree course at Glasgow University, I sat enthralled in the forensic medicine class as Professor Glaister himself told us in great detail about the case and his own contribution to solving it.
When the tall and badly-mutilated body was found, the investigating officers simply assumed it was a man because of its height. But there was no apparent male match on the register of missing persons register, and without any knowledge of the identity or background of the victim there were no lines of investigation to follow up. It was Dr Glaister’s forensic examination that established the body to be that of a female, and the police were then soon to identify the body as the already reported missing Mrs Buxton.The trail then quickly led to her husband and his eventual conviction and execution.
When I went home and related this to my father, who had until recently been a senior member of Glasgow CID, he smiled and offered a rather different version. He believed that it was Willie Ewing, a young Glasgow CID officer assisting in the case, who first suggested to Dr Glaister that the tall body might in fact be that of a female. Dr Glaister then re-examined the corpse and was able to confirm that this was indeed the case. This forensic evidence at the trial established the reputation and fame of Dr Glaister, but Detective Constable Ewing, who later rose to be Chief Superintendent in charge of Glasgow CID, was never given any of the credit.
I have no way of confirming which version is the more accurate, and we will probably never know now. But it is an intriguing story.
Iain AD Mann,
7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here