I’ve been intrigued enough by the questions over Hugh’s fate to consult the science over body decomposition in freshwater. The outcome is that it’s entirely feasible that he did enter the water in late October 1883 and reach the reported ‘considerably decomposed’ state (Glasgow Evening Times).
An international standard for determining how long a body was in water was established in the following scientific paper, which relied heavily on details of 125 bodies recovered from the River Clyde in Glasgow, with immersion periods of a few minutes (0 days) to 192 days.
Predicting the Postmortem Submersion Interval for Human Remains Recovered from U.K. Waterways. Heaton et al. Journal of Forensic Science (2010) 55: 302-307.
Let me summarise from the study.
Well established pathological states were compared with known times in the water, allowing the scientists ‘to produce a single linear regression model for predicting ADD from observed decomposition’. ADD is the Average Daily temperature for the number of Days in water - time and temperature are the main determinants of decomposition.
What I’ve deduced is that Hugh could have entered the water late in October and stayed submerged until early March - the Clyde was incredibly busy, and a floating body would have been seen very soon. His heavy clothing would have contributed to submersion. Submersion and low temperature are key factors in inhibiting decomposition. His body would have headed downstream slowly, being delayed by twice-daily upstream shifts due to the tidal behaviour of the Clyde.
I’ve applied the time and feasible temperature data of Hugh’s circumstances into the ADD model. There isn’t a database of Scottish river temperatures, but in England, river temperatures Nov-Feb inclusive (when Hugh is hypothesised to have been in the water) are 5 degrees. The number of days was 127. The output from the model is that the body would have had a pathological score of 18-19, on a scale of 1-25. Looking at the reference pathological descriptions (gruesome reading!), it is fair to say they would fit with ‘considerably decomposed’, but being well short of complete decomposition.
Overall, then, it is feasible that poor Hugh entered the water late in October.
We should bear in mind also that the memorial in Dalbeth would have been inscribed in consultation with his family, who surely would have provided the October date.
In conclusion, and bearing in mind that genealogy often evades certainty, my belief is that Hugh on the memorial indeed might well be the unfortunate Hugh whose body was found in Greenock.
