Signs of Murder

A Small Town in Scotland, a Miscarriage of Justice and the Search for the Truth

By: David Wilson

Narrated by: David Wilson

From the UK's leading criminologist comes the true story of Margaret McLaughlin and the man he believes was fitted up for her murder.

Before David Wilson became the UK's pre-eminent criminologist, he was just a young boy growing up in the Scottish town of Carluke. When he was a child, the brutal murder of a young woman rocked this small community, but very quickly a man was arrested for the crime, convicted and put behind bars. For most, life slowly carried on - case closed.

But there were whispers in the town that the wrong man was imprisoned. Over the years, these whispers grew louder, to the point that any time David would visit, he'd be asked in hushed tones, 'What are you going to do about the Carluke Case?'

Carluke believed the real killer had evaded justice. A murderer was still on the loose.

Forty years later, it's time for David to return home, and find out the truth.

©2020 David Wilson (P)2020 Hachette Audio UK

Critic reviews

"Enthralling...will leave true crime readers with more to ponder than they bargained for." (The Herald)

A passion project

I felt like I wasn't the intended audience. Plus the lack of access to the original police investigation made the story thin and stretched.

Disappointing

Look, I am a fan of David Wilson and I am always happy to see him pop up in various documentaries, so I purchased his book.

Unfortunately, this is an example of an author who should not have narrated his own book. His voice has a lovely tone and his pace is good but he reads every sentence and paragraph with the same pattern of intonation. That and the upward inflexion at the end of every sentence is effective in sound bite situations but it is just annoying when applied to the reading of a whole book. It drove me nuts.

I can't finish this book and will be returning it.

Sorry David. I remain a fan.

A bit misleading, thin on story

The problem with this book, as I see it, is that the author has tried to promote a book which is essentially a social polemic, as a true crime mystery. In fact, the murder and its investigation merely play a supporting part in the story. Much more important for the author is for the listener to understand his qualifications (I gave up trying to count how many times he referred to himself with some version of the word "criminologist"). It's telling that he clearly understands confirmation bias, but is willfully ignorant of his own. We're meant to believe that his (ostensibly independent) criminological autopsy targeted the same person who the whole town seems to suspect, and was, not shockingly, an ex-boyfriend of the victim. It strains credulity. Which is not even a problem, since the individual is already well known. The personal investigation is only meant to establish the author's criminological bona fides, and provide an ego boost.

Personally, I disagree with virtually none of the political or social dynamics the author espouses. There is a clearly progressive agenda proposed for the criminal justice system and greater society, both in Scotland and the world, which is quite reasonable and admirable. However, the manner in which its presented falls woefully short. Copious citations of others' research and studies drags the book at times into a second-rate introductory text to human psychology and social patterns. And it only ever tangentially touches back onto the main topic, the murder of a young woman in Carluke, Scotland. Frankly, that story would have been better served as one of a compilation of social injustices supporting the primary theme of improving policing and community involvement, which this book essentially is, though with only the one example. And particularly ridiculous was the faux feminism exhibited in his introduction of his "Bakehouse Cafe sounding board", a collection of women, including his sisters, who recount their memories from 1973. It's so tone-deaf in its patronizing manner to be laughable. He refuses to give physical descriptions of the women, as it would be objectifying, and detract from their dazzling insights. Presumably the troglodyte listeners won't be able to sufficiently focus, though this doesn't stop him from later making references about "a woman of her age" and "looking fit". But it's clear, he just wants to be viewed as a good guy. Pity he wasn't a better author.