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.