My latest novel A RATTLE OF BONES sees Rebecca Connolly investigating a miscarriage of justice. In it, I mention the notorious Oscar Slater case, a case that continues to haunt the Scottish legal system. In part one of this three-part series I outlined the crime and the hunt for the killer, which swiftly focussed on Oscar Slater, who was eventually arrested in New York.
In part two I look at the case against him and the aftermath of the trial – including the attempts by one gallant Glasgow detective to reveal the iniquities of the prosecution. His crusade cost him dear.

Not the practice in Glasgow
The motive, the Crown insisted, was robbery. But if that were the case, why was there only one item of any value stolen and others left discarded? And how would a man like Slater even get through the securely-locked door? Reports suggested that Miss Gilchrist was unlikely to let him in and there was no sign of forced entry.
No murder weapon had been found – Dr Adams’ theory that the chair leg had been used was ignored or discounted for he was listed as a witness but never called, which is unusual as he was the first medical man on the scene and had actually pronounced life extinct. However, in Slater’s bags they found a small hammer which they insisted had been used to inflict the killer blows. No traces of blood were found on this weapon and there was no explanation why he would hold onto it during his ‘flight from justice’.
They produced a series of witnesses who identified Slater as a man seen watching Miss Gilchrist’s apartment. However, in what was becoming a motif for this investigation, each of these witnesses had previously been shown, or had seen in the press, a photograph of the suspect. In an ID parade he had appeared with eleven other men – nine plainclothes cops and two railway officials – who looked nothing like him. During the trial, a police officer was asked if it would be fairer to exhibit a suspect in a parade of similar looking men.
‘It might be the fairest way,’ the officer conceded, ‘but it is not the practice in Glasgow.’
Only one of the witnesses had spoken to the mysterious watcher and she had not noted anything foreign about his speech – Slater spoke with a pronounced accent. One of Arthur Adams sisters said she had seen a man in the street at 6.55pm, five minutes before the murder, and identified Slater by his profile. Unfortunately, she said that the man she saw was wearing a heavy tweed overcoat and ‘had the appearance of a delicate man.’ Naturally, this did not gel with the now accepted description of what the suspect was wearing or the fact that Slater was powerfully built and deep-chested.
Slater produced witnesses who placed him in another part of the city at the time of the murder. At 6.12pm he was in Central Station sending a telegram, at 6.30pm he was in Renfield Street dressed in a waterproof and a bowler hat. Madame Junio and their maid insisted he was home at 7pm. But most of the witnesses were dismissed by the prosecution as low-lives and therefore their acquaintance with the truth was, at best, a passing one.
A ticket girl at Kelvinbridge Railway Station had identified Slater as the man who had burst through the barrier some time between 7.30pm and 8pm. The prosecution picture was that Slater had ‘taken a train to some remote part of the city and then came strolling back to his house’. The Crown contended that there nothing more was known of his movements until 9.45pm.
But there was one witness who was neither a low-life nor a friend of the accused. Grocer’s assistant Duncan MacBrayne knew Slater as a customer and had told police that he had seen him at the door of his flat in St George’s Road at 8.15pm. Slater was neither anguished nor flustered. MacBrayne was shown Slater in the police station and the suspect said, ‘Oh, you are the man in the big shop in Sauchiehall Street.’
Of course, it is not inconceivable that Slater could have reached his home from Queen’s Terrace in that time but his demeanour did not fit the picture the Crown was trying to paint.
In hindsight unsurprisingly, MacBrayne’s name did not appear on the list of witnesses and he was not interviewed by the defence at the time of the trial. Another witness, a female school teacher who saw two men running in the street in the opposite direction to the man Barrowman claimed to have seen, was cited to appear but was never called. She did identify one of them as the accused but said he was wearing a completely different style of coat and colour. The coat worn by the killer was, as William Roughead noted in his dry way, ‘already in respect of hues (resembling) that of Joseph.’
The Crown had decided that the description furnished by Lambie and Barrowman, now in accord, was the main plank in their case. The rest was mud-slinging.
Lies were told at the trial, of that we can be sure – and not just by the witnesses. The Lord Advocate made his final speech without the aid of notes.
‘Possibly that accounts for its many inaccuracies,’ observed noted English barrister Sir Edward Marshall Hall, who took an interest in the case.
Lord Guthrie’s charge to the jury was one-sided and questioned the accused’s character, which had not been properly explored in evidence. The judge had said, ‘A man of that kind has not the presumption of innocence in his favour…’
In other words, Slater was not a good man, therefore he did not deserve to be judged as one. What he ignored was the fact that every man is innocent until proven guilty of the particular charge he faced, irrespective of his past, background, nationality or religion. And it is strongly believed that all four of these facets coloured the establishment view of Slater.
Nine of the jurors thought Slater Guilty, one Not Guilty and five Not Proven. Still protesting his innocence, and having been advised by counsel not to give evidence on his own behalf, he was sentenced to die, the date set at 27 May 1909. Two days before the due date, the sentence was commuted to life in prison.
Many rejoiced that a brutal murderer was no longer at large but there was disquiet over the case from the start. While Oscar Slater laboured away in the grim fortress that was Peterhead Prison, men of influence tried to have the case re-examined. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, took an interest and was a stalwart campaigner over the next 19 years, despite Slater’s personal life being a source of distaste to him. He believed that Miss Gilchrist was murdered because of a will and not her jewels – and that theory pointed to someone in the family. The august pages of The Times and The Spectator carried letters and articles attacking the verdict and finally in 1914, with no Court of Appeal yet formed in Scotland, a ‘Secret Inquiry’ was held in Glasgow. Limited in remit, no-one represented Slater although both the Chief Constable and Procurator-Fiscal both had input. Naturally, it was nothing but a whitewash.
That year saw the sacking of Police Detective Lieutenant John Thomson Trench. He had been with the Glasgow force for 21 years and was, as force historian Douglas Grant said, ‘a brilliant officer’ who held the King’s Police Medal for Meritorious Service. He had been on the squad investigating the case and believed that the old woman had been murdered by someone close to her.
He also believed that Helen Lambie was intimately acquainted with the killer.
He had discovered that on the night of the murder, when the maidservant ran to the home of the deceased’s cousin, Miss Birrell, she had blurted out, ‘I saw the man who did it. I think it was….’ and here the only reference in documents are the initials ‘A.B’. Trench reported his findings to his superiors but was told that ‘A.B.’ had been fully investigated and cleared, even though no-one had, as far as is known, mentioned him during the initial investigation.
Trench, though, was a man of conscience. He had already averted one Scottish Miscarriage of Justice based on suspect identification – the so-called ‘Broughty Ferry’ case of 1912 which was very similar to the 1908 murder of Miss Gilchrist. In that, an elderly spinster was murdered in her own home, her house ransacked but little taken. A stranger had been seen around the house, was identified by English police and a photograph shown to potential witnesses, who were later prepared to swear to their identification in court. Trench, whose expertise had ensured he was called in on the case, was unconvinced and proved that the man had been in Antwerp at the time of the murder. The Broughty Ferry case remains unsolved.
With no notice being taken of his pleas over the Slater case Trench, with what he thought was an assurance from the Scottish Secretary of State that there would be no backlash against him, took his information to lawyer David Cook. He in turn passed it on to the Secretary of State who ordered the ‘Secret Inquiry’ – but tied its hands so much that there was no hope of the truth being found.
When its predictable findings were returned, Trench learned he should not have put his faith in politicians for there followed a severe backlash against him. He had communicated official information to a third party and Glasgow Police took a dim view of him stepping outside the ranks. On 14 September 1914, John Trench, one of the best officers on the force, was ignominiously dismissed.
The war with Germany had begun and he enlisted in the Royal Scots Fusiliers but his vindictive superiors had not finished with him. It seems they would not be happy until his reputation was completely destroyed. Before he could be sent to fight Trench and David Cook were accused of receiving stolen goods in relation to the recovery of items stolen in a burglary. Everything he did in that case was done with the full knowledge of his superiors – and he had received a glowing commendation from an insurance company. But that did not matter and the two men were brought to trial. Luckily though, the system worked in the way it should and the judge ordered the jury to dismiss the charges. This low treachery in high places haunted the Force for decades and it never apologised for its actions.
Trench survived the war but did not live to see Oscar Slater – or himself – vindicated. He died on 13 May 1919. Lawyer David Cook never fully recovered from his treatment at the hands of the system in which he believed and died in 1916.
However, if the authorities thought the case would go away, they were wrong.
Part three will be posted soon







