by Tom Wood
To Sinclair, however, it meant not one jot of difference; he was in prison for life anyway. But for Helen’s and Christine’s families it was the end of a long and painful journey. Their loved ones could now rest in peace – all the questions about what happened had been answered. And for the police and Crown there was immense relief that after all the years and false hopes they had finished the job. The law had been changed and legal history made, and at the very end justice had been done for two teenagers who had gone out with friends one fateful night in 1977 and had the tragic misfortune to fall into the hands of two murderous criminals.
Conclusion
I have often been asked what made the World’s End case so different from others, and what motivated Sinclair in his murderous spree of 1977/78. The World’s End was a totemic case which attracted press and public attention for over thirty years. On one hand it is difficult to understand why, since between 1968 and 2003 well over a thousand women were killed in Scotland. What was so special about the murders of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie? Perhaps part of the answer is that their deaths represented a loss of innocence, and the tragedy of their murders caught the public mood at a time when society was changing rapidly.
In the media their deaths and the emotive ‘World’s End’ epithet struck a chord, while for the police the case was so extraordinary that it got under the skin of many officers who worked on it – myself included. Some cases are like that – the victims or the circumstances stay with you and never leave you. They haunt you and in a sense come to define you, and every setback increases your determination to solve the case and bring the perpetrator to justice.
And of course for many years we knew we had the key. We were certain that within the forensic productions – the clothes, ligatures and samples taken at post mortem – lay the identity of the murderers. But at the time we just didn’t have the knowledge or the science to interpret the clues. But we were sure that one day we would get the men who had killed Helen and Christine. And eventually we did.
As for Sinclair, this disgraceful human being is in many ways typical of a certain type of offender. Thankfully we see few like him in a small place like Scotland, but in other countries people like Sinclair are more common and their pathology – that of an organised murderer – is well established. Studies by the FBI, who tragically have had greater experience than we would ever want with this kind of phenomenon, describe an organised murderer as typically ‘Male, of average or above average intelligence, a skilled and hard worker, lives with a partner, early offending, controlled mood during the commission of the crime, use of violence, mobility with car in good condition, adaptable – able to change patterns of offending if required and extremely resistant to police interview’. They go on to talk of ‘Planned offence, the victim a targeted stranger, crime scenes reflect overall control of the victim, restraints used, violence used prior to death, weapon/evidence absent, transports the victim or body a distance from first contact’.
Sinclair ticks all the boxes as a textbook organised killer. He compartmentalised his life, he was intensely secretive, he was a violent thief as well as a sex offender, and like many sex offenders his motives were as much about control and violence as sex. The combination of his offending traits and the complete absence of empathy with his victims made him a danger to women from an early age.
Passing sentence on Sinclair for the culpable homicide of seven-year-old Catherine Reehill in 1961, the Judge, Lord Mackintosh, described Sinclair as ‘callous, cunning and wicked – so obsessed with sex that he would not stop short even of taking a life to gratify his lust’. Mackintosh had assessed him with pinpoint accuracy, for Sinclair’s behaviour was set by this time for the rest of his criminal career.
Had we been aware at the time of the original investigation of the pattern of Sinclair’s earlier killings we would of course have focused on the offender rather than the offence in our hunt for Helen and Christine’s killer. As it was, we only became aware of the whole picture in 2004, long after Sinclair was safely in prison.
What was really remarkable about Sinclair was that, at the time of the World’s End murders, he was not the only serial killer in Scotland. Also operating at that time were Robert Black, the killer of four young girls and very possibly more, and Peter Tobin, the murderer of at least three girls and young women. Whilst Tobin’s and Black’s victims and modus operandi were slightly different from Sinclair’s, all three men were of an age, their crimes were sexually motivated, transport played an important part in them, and, crucially, all three evaded detection by conventional investigation. Black was only arrested after a remarkable coincidence which saw an observant member of the public report a suspected abduction on a quiet rural Borders road, and the later return of Black down the same road, by which time a police road block had been set up. In a final twist, the officer who arrested Black at the road block was the father of his latest victim, who was thankfully recovered, though barely alive, from Black’s van. Tobin was only arrested after the killing of Angelika Kluk and the concealment of her body in the church in which he worked. And as we know, Sinclair was brought to justice only after over thirty years of painstaking investigation and forensic developments which depended on excellent forensic management atypical of the kind that was usually practised back in 1977.
In an odd personal coincidence I was involved in some part in the investigation of the crimes of all three men. As a Detective Inspector I worked on the early investigation into the deaths of Susan Maxwell and Caroline Hogg, murdered by Robert Black. Later, I was Divisional Commander in West Lothian Police Division when Vicky Hamilton went missing from Bathgate, and I helped co-ordinate the massive searches for her, which unfortunately were in vain. Years later, after Tobin had been arrested for the murder of Angelika Kluk, the remains of Vicky Hamilton were found in the garden of a house once occupied by Tobin in Margate, many hundreds of miles from where she had been abducted.
The coincidence of three such killers operating in a small country at the same time is so statistically improbable as to be almost impossible. At least twelve girls and young women lost their lives at the hands of these men. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that we, the Police Service of the day, were ill equipped either to prevent or detect such crimes using the techniques available at the time.
Would it be different today? Much has changed since Sinclair, Black and Tobin killed. Even after Sinclair’s failed trial of 2007 there have been huge advances in the investigation of serious crime. Lothian and Borders Police is no more, and gone also are the other seven forces that policed Scotland, all replaced by the National Police Service of Scotland. While there are mixed views about the new Force and controversies around local policing sensitivity, accountability and the apparent urge to centralise, it is clear to me that whatever else might be unsatisfactory, the management and response to serious crime has greatly improved. The formation of regional Major Investigation Teams, using the most experienced detectives and best techniques means that the most professional response can be concentrated quickly on serious crimes in the vitally important early stages. Largely gone too are the petty jealousies and turf wars that used to obstruct joint working between forces, which even occurred during periods of the World’s End investigation. Scotland has never been in a better position to meet the increasing challenges of serious and organised crime. But we cannot be complacent, for it is a characteristic of big police organisations eventually to suffer from hubris and to come to believe firmly in their own infallibility. We should not forget that the new science that added so much to the World’s End came from a commercial company in England – not our own Scottish Forensic Science Service. The world is getting smaller and there are always lessons to be learned from elsewhere.
Perhaps the most intriguing question for investigators today is how far and in what direction forensic science will develop in the future. The World’s End murders were resolved when technology and methodology developed to the extent
that vital evidence could be extracted from materials which were of no evidential value at the time of the original investigation. The crucial questions are, what currently worthless materials will in future reveal vital evidence, what should we retain, how and where? We cannot keep it all, but if forensic science continues to develop in the way it has over the last thirty years, then we must make sure we are best placed to take advantage of its advances.
Setting aside the failure of the trial in 2007, what could we have done better in the original investigation, and what lessons can we learn? With hindsight it’s always easy to criticise and to highlight where failures have occurred – unfortunately this is all too common today. In 1977 it was quite different. Looking through the old press cuttings it’s clear there was no attempt by the media to find fault with the police investigation, nor was there the kind of outrageous speculation we see about high-profile cases today.
We didn’t resolve the World’s End case at the time by traditional policing methods – we didn’t even come close. But in fairness it’s hard to see what else the original team could have done. They followed the leads they had, they kept an ongoing and positive dialogue with Helen’s and Christine’s parents (a procedure which was not common then), and, most importantly, they retained all the relevant documents and forensic evidence so that we, over thirty years later, could capitalise on them. And over the years they appointed good officers to caretake the case, who with the help of the scientists, finally solved it. But initially there were flaws and some bad practice. The same Identification Branch staff visited both sites, and the bodies of both Helen and Christine were taken to the police mortuary in the same van. By today’s standards it was poor crime scene management, and the defence highlighted it during both trials.
The first pathological examinations were also inconsistent, with small errors made at both original post mortems. These too would have consequences as they cast doubt on exact time of death, which thirty years later at the 2007 trial became a significant factor.
The first phase of the investigation viewed the crimes as local and committed massive resources to local enquiries. The systematic scanning of other crimes in other parts of the country was neither prioritised nor carried out thoroughly enough.
Undoubtedly the inter-force conference when the Heads of CID for East and West Scotland met in 1980 missed an opportunity to link cases, but even so it is doubtful what benefit this would have brought, given the lack of adequate administrative systems at the time. The consequential muddle might actually have been damaging. There again, it might have ensured that all the forensic productions were stored in one location, which could have prevented the loss or destruction of those in the Glasgow cases, which denied these investigations the enormous benefit of the twenty-first-century science that was key to the success of the World’s End trial in 2014.
Should we have identified Angus Sinclair earlier, prevented some of his offences or been able to track down Gordon Hamilton in his lifetime? In 1977 Sinclair was not a suspect and didn’t even feature on the database for the World’s End case, or indeed for any others. This is no surprise; he was relatively unknown in the late 1970s and had no apparent connection with the area of the World’s End pub or East Lothian, where Helen and Christine’s bodies were found.
Later, we failed to fully understand the 1997 DNA breakthrough. This was partly the fault of the scientists not explaining it properly and partly our ignorance of the new science. In the 1997 results there was an indication of the presence of two men – had we been aware of that, further examination might have identified Sinclair a full seven years earlier. This would not have prevented him from murdering again – he was already in prison – but we would have been on the trail earlier.
Almost twenty years after his death, Hamilton remains a mystery. Unpopular, violent and abusive to his wife, his part in the World’s End murders is essentially all we know about him. Is it really possible that this was his only crime? Was he involved with Sinclair in other crimes, and did he also commit offences on his own, between Sinclair’s imprisonment in 1981 and his own death in 1996? Certainly his DNA hasn’t been identified at other historic crime scenes, but bearing in mind how developments in forensic science helped us finally bring Sinclair to justice, who’s to know what evidence might yet turn up.
A real opportunity was missed in 2001 when Sinclair was arrested for the 1970s murder of Mary Gallagher. At that time a connection should have been made between Mary’s murder and the other outstanding cases in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Although members of the team suspected Sinclair of other offences, this suspicion was not acted on or shared, and it was only with the National Crime Faculty analysis some years later that the link was made clear.
After release from prison for the murder of Catherine Reehill, Sinclair’s next serious conviction was for the rapes and assaults on young girls in the early 1980s. These offences were very different in profile from the World’s End murders so it is not surprising that no connection was made. In any event the Edinburgh and Glasgow murders took place over a very short period in 1977–78. No others were committed after Sinclair’s offending pattern changed, and consequently no lives could have been saved, even if he had been picked out when he came to police notice in 1980.
Has Angus Sinclair escaped justice for other serious offences? I am sure of it, but we will never know for certain just how many victims there might be.
Finally, what can we conclude from the World’s End murders? The 2007 trial was a disaster, and even when, after supreme effort, Sinclair was found guilty in the courtroom, it didn’t change some hard realities: Helen and Christine are still dead and Angus Sinclair is still in prison. But at least there is the satisfaction of seeing justice done, and there is some sense of closure for the Scott and Eadie families. Regardless of our eventual success, however, this retrial can never be regarded as a triumph. Let us not forget that the murder of Helen and Christine were tragedies not only for these young women themselves, but also for their families. There was never going to be cause for celebration.
Furthermore, we cannot deny the inescapable conclusion that the system failed Helen Scott, Christine Eadie and their families. The truth is that we always knew how dangerous Angus Sinclair was. He was assessed with unerring accuracy after he killed Catherine Reehill in the 1960s and found to be ‘obsessed with sex and given the minimum opportunity he will repeat these offences irrespective of what promises he may give to the contrary’. Yet he was released to brutalise, rape and kill again and again.
Much of course seems to have changed over the last thirty-seven years, but I wonder how much really has. With pressure on prison places, how many young Angus Sinclairs are even today being processed towards liberty despite the assessment of professionals who warn they are still a danger to the public. This is not an easy matter to reflect on – decisions must be made, risks taken, but in the aftermath of the World’s End the question of how different things might have been had Sinclair’s early assessments been fully considered gives food for thought.
Of course the crimes which I describe here happened a long time ago. Reflecting today on the policing of the 1970s is almost like the study of ancient history. Yet for some the events of 1977 are as fresh today as they were on the day their world changed forever. For the families and friends of Helen and Christine there is no respite; there never will be, only the raw open wound of grief month on month, year on year. It is at least some consolation that victims get much better treatment than they used to. Family Liaison Officers, victim impact statements and most of all the incredible work done by the trained volunteers of the Victim Support Service all make a difference. Yet we must go further. It is said that the mark of a civilised society is the way it treats its prisoners. If this is true then it is surely the mark of a compassionate, right-minded society that victims are treated better. Yet I fear that all too often this is not the case. I do not argue with the need for the effective rehabilitation of prisoners, quite the reverse,
in fact. We must make the best efforts at rehabilitation for the most practical reason of all – to curtail re-offending. But we must also continue to drive for better treatment of victims and their families who deserve ongoing support. It has always perplexed me that offenders’ programmes are so much more numerous and better funded than services for victims.
Fortunately I have never been a victim of serious crime, but I have rubbed up against too many such victims not to recognise the effects it can have. I hope that in future victims’ services are expanded, their funding secured and enhanced, not for tea and sympathy but for real, practical support and advice.
It must also be said, however, that having failed Helen and Christine in 2007, the justice system, the Justice Secretary and the Lord Advocate in person took responsibility and, with huge effort, changed the law in order to put matters right. The long investigations into their deaths, along with the legal trials and tribulations that followed down the years, have helped change the Law in Scotland and left our justice system fairer and better in the twenty-first century. In the future, other victims, their families and we as a society will benefit. That is the positive legacy from this tragic tale, and we can perhaps take some comfort from that.
This book is written in memory of Helen and Christine but it is dedicated to the other victims, the ones we tend to overlook: the families and the friends who are left behind. They will never forget, and we should not forget them.
The worst in human behaviour sometimes brings out the best in others, and so, finally, it is right to conclude by saluting the generations of police officers, scientists and support staff who brought the World’s End case to a close. They never gave up, never stopped trying, and finally by dedication and willpower succeeded.