|
shyscyberchamber.com
|
THE ATTIC
:
DISMEMBERMENT
:
(Case Study) Dr Buck Ruxton
|
Date
Added
FEB 2004 |
On the morning of 29th
September 1935, Susan Haines Johnson, a holiday visitor to the southern uplands
of Scotland, passed over the old stone bridge which crossed the Gardenholme
Linn, a tributary stream of the river Arran, some two miles north of the town of
Moffat. As she looked idly over the bride, Miss Johnson could scarcely believe
her eyes; at the bottom of the steep gully a dismembered human arm was reaching
up out of a large bundle. Susan Johnson lost no time in telling her brother
Alfred, who lost no time in telling the police. By late that Sunday afternoon it
had fallen the lot of Sergeant Sloane of the Dumfriesshire Constabulary to begin
the official investigation; he was later joined by Inspector Strath, and between
them the two officers began the grisly job of combing the tangled bank side of
the Linn for pieces of flesh and bone. Such fragments as were found were removed
to the tiny mortuary attached to Moffat cemetery. The search was resumed on the
following morning, when other portions were discovered, and on subsequent days
until 7th October a left foot was found wrapped in newspaper on the Glasgow -
Carlisle road nine miles south of Moffat, and on 4th November a young woman
found a right forearm and hand lying by the roadside about a half mile south of
the Gardenholme Linn.
During this time Professor John Glaister had been summoned from his duties at
the head of Edinburgh University's Forensic Science Department; his initial
inventory of the collection of human remains makes grim reading:
Four bundles : the first was wrapped in a blouse and contained two upper arms
and four pieces of flesh; the second comprised of two thigh bones, two legs from
which most of the flesh had been stripped, and nine pieces of flesh, all wrapped
in a pillow case; the third was a piece of cotton sheeting containing and
consisted of a human trunk, two legs with the feet tied with the hem of a cotton
sheet and some wisps of straw and cotton wool.
In addition, other parcels opened to reveal two heads, one of which was wrapped
in a child's rompers; a quantity of cotton wool and sections from the Daily
Herald of 6th August 1935; one thigh; two forearms with hands attached but minus
the top joints of the fingers and thumbs; and several pieces of skin and flesh.
One part was wrapped in the Sunday Graphic dated 15th September which was
subsequently to provide an important clue.
The remains were all badly
decomposed and
infested with maggots, so their immediate transfer to the Anatomy Department
of Edinburgh University was ordered. Under the supervision of Dr Gilbert Millar
the remains were first washed in a bath, treated with ether to destroy the
maggots, and left in a preservation solution of formalin awaiting detailed
examination and reconstruction. In all, seventy pieces of what appeared to be
two bodies had been collected, and it was immediately clear that the extensive
mutilation of the features was the result of a deliberate attempt to frustrate
identification. The ears, eyes, nose, lips and skin of the faces had been
removed, and some teeth extracted. The terminal joints of the fingers had been
cut off presumably to prevent identification of
fingerprints. Even so, one of the heads could be confidently ascribed to a
young woman, while the other after initially being though to be male, was later
identified as belonging to an older female.
From this unsavoury shambles the medical experts were required to provide not
only identification but legally acceptable proof of identification, plus such
other details as
time of death and
cause of death and any information that might point to a murder suspect.
Meanwhile, another team of experienced detectives were engaged in the detailed
police investigation that necessarily accompanies a major murder hunt. Missing
persons inquiries were made over a large area around Moffat, though results were
negative, as were inquiries into irregular movements of cars in the area of the
Gardenholme Linn bridge. Officers examined closely the materials in which the
dismembered remains were wrapped for any clue of the origin of the victims.
The first major break through was in the sheet of the Sunday Graphic for 15
September 1935. This was recognised as what in the newspaper trade are called
'slip editions' - that is, issues celebrating an event of local importance, and
Morecambe festival and was sold only in the town, in Lancaster, and in the
immediately surrounding district, Now, by happy coincidence the Chief Constable
of Dumfries - under whose expert leadership the investigation was proceeding -
saw an article in the Glasgow's Daily Record which gave an account of the
disappearance three weeks previously of a young woman named Mary Jane Rogerson,
who had been employed as a nursemaid by the family of a Lancaster doctor named
Buck Ruxton. Further investigation acquainted police with the fact that Mrs
Ruxton had disappeared at the same time.
A distraught Mrs Jessie Rogerson, resident of Morecambe and stepmother of Mary
Jane was brought in to see if she could identify any of the material which had
wrapped the grisly Moffat remains; to her great distress Mrs Rogerson
immediately picked out the blouse which she had given to Mary after repairing it
with a distinctive patch under the arm. Following a direct lead from Jessie
Rogerson, the child's rompers were later identified by a Mrs Holme of
Grange-over-Sands; she had passed on some children's clothing to the Ruxton's
when they had stayed with her as borders the previous summer.
So the connection between the
dismembered bodies, the missing Lancaster woman, and the family of Buck
Ruxton was now established if not proved, and at this point the main thrust of
the investigation was placed in the capable hands of Captain Henry Vann, Chief
Constable of Lancaster. The Lancaster force had already had some contact with
Ruxton - or rather he with them - on a couple of recent occasions he had
exchanged some very excited dialogue with Captain Vann requesting that something
be done regarding the spread of gossip linking him with the finds at Moffat. On
the evening 11th October, a distressed Ruxton again blustered into the Police
station at Lancaster demanding to see Captain Vann: 'My dear Vann, can't you do
something about these newspaper reports? Look at this. This newspaper says that
this woman has a full set of teeth in the lower jaw, and I know, of my
knowledge, that Mary Rogerson had at least four teeth missing in this jaw. Can't
you publish it in the papers that there is no connection between the two and
stop this trouble?'
Dr Ruxton had been born in 1899 to a Parsee family living in Bombay. Originally
given the name Bukhtyar Rustamji Rantnji Hakim, he abbreviated them first to
Buck Hakim and later, in England, by deed pool to Buck Ruxton. Ruxton gained his
Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degrees at the University of
Bombay, and subsequently served in the Indian medical services in Baghdad and
Basra. It was to prove ironic that Ruxton also attended Edinburgh University
where, although he failed to secure his fellowship of the Royal College of
Surgeons, he did secure a life partner in the person of Isabella Kerr. Miss Kerr
had been managing a cafe in the city, and was at the time married to a Dutchman
named Van Ess. Ruxton and Isabella never married, though when he secured the
practice at 2 Dalton Square, in Lancaster, they lived together as Mr and Mrs
Ruxton, and she bore him three children. The household was completed by Mary
Jane Rogerson, a cheerful girl of twenty whose duty it was to help with the
children, and there were two live out charladies, Agnes Oxley and Elizabeth
Curwen, who shared the heavy work and much of the cooking.
The Ruxtons' was not an entirely happy harmonious relationship, characterised as
it was by his insane - and quite groundless - jealousy. Although there was no
doubt that a considerable affection existed between the couple, the quarrels
became more violent as they became more frequent with Ruxton's growing obsession
with his wife's imagined infidelity, occasioning at least two recorded visits
from the local constable.
In 1934, two years after a desperate suicide attempt, Mrs Ruxton left her
husband and fled to the comfort of her sisters home in Edinburgh. She was
finally persuaded by a hysterically sobbing Ruxton to go back to Lancaster, but
it was clear that the relationship was nearing crisis. A year after her return
Isabella Ruxton was being wrongly accused of entertaining an affair with a young
local man named Edmondson, the son of family friends. On 7th September 1935, Mrs
Ruxton again escaped to Edinburgh, this time with her friends the Edmondson's.
Although there was absolutely no foundation to his suspicions, Ruxton began a
tirade of abuse on her that was to last most of the following week - until Mrs
Ruxton took the family car up to Blackpool where it was a harmless annual custom
for her to meet her two sisters for the day and enjoy the illuminations. To Buck
Ruxton it was obvious that she had gone to meet a new lover.
Isabella Ruxton returned on that Saturday night, 14th September, as she had said
she would. She was never seen alive outside 2 Dalton Square again; nor was Mary
Rogerson.
Mrs Curwen was on duty on Friday 13th September when Dr Ruxton told her that she
could finish up now and go home and need not return till the following Monday.
Mrs Oxley (who was expected on the Sunday) received a message via her husband
that Mrs Ruxton and Mary had gone on holiday to Edinburgh - an annual occurrence
- there was no need to come. During the rest of that Sunday a succession of
trades people came to the door about their errands, including the delivery of
the Sunday Graphic. Shortly before midday Ruxton deposited his children with the
Andersons, close friends of the family with whom the children were familiar, and
where they would spend the greater part of the next few days. When Ruxton
arrived he complained of a
cut hand - injured he said, while opening a tin of fruit for the children's
breakfast; he was to make much of his cut to everybody he met over the following
days.
At four thirty that afternoon Ruxton visited a Mrs Hampshire, one of his
patients, and relating the story of the
cut hand persuaded her to return with him to Dalton Square to help 'prepare
for the decorators' who were expected to arrive the following morning. He
explained that Mrs Ruxton and Mary were away in Edinburgh.
In retrospect, this invitation to Mrs Hampshire (and later to her husband as
well) was either grossly arrogant on Ruxton's part, or grossly stupid. This
woman's evidence alone could have convicted the doctor at his trial - evidence
of
carpets soaked with blood taken up and rolled, strange stains on the bath,
clothing so
stained with blood that she could only burn it, and a similarly stained blue
suit which Ruxton had the audacity to offer as a gift to Mr Hampshire.
Just a sample of the extraordinary trail of clues left about the
scene of the crime by Ruxton, which were methodically welded into a
completely watertight case by the police forensic laboratory. Scientific
investigators, in collaboration with the police, established that other items of
blood stained clothing and carpet had littered the yard at the side of the
house, and that fires had been seen blazing at all hours of the night and day;
charred fabrics identified as having been Mary Rogerson's clothing was found in
the ashes. An unwholesome smell had been noticed in the house by the charladies,
and Ruxton had been obliges to spray with air freshener and eau-de-Cologne.
Scraps of human tissue were found in the drains and waste pipes leading from the
bath and extensive
blood staining was present on the stairs and stair carpets, bathroom walls
and floor and various items of clothing.
Meanwhile the forensic team at Edinburgh University (Ruxton's old Alma Mater)
were performing minor miracles. Professor Glaister had enlisted the help of
Professor James Couper Brash of Edinburgh University's Department of Anatomy,
assisted by Dr E. Llewellyn Godfrey. The
dental examination was entrusted to Dr A.C.W. Hutchinson, Dean of the Dental
Hospital and School at Edinburgh and Mr A. Johnstone Brown. Later in the
investigation (he was out of the country at the time of the discoveries)
Professor Sydney Smith would lend the great weight of his experience.
Professor Brash had begun the painstakingly slow reconstruction of the remains.
The collections of parts which until then had been roughly divided into two
boxers marked Body No. 1 and Body No. 2 were taking on separate identities. The
size and shape of the heads were so dissimilar as to be differentiated at a
glance and formed the basis of the identification. Some insight into the degree
of determination on the killer's part to destroy the identity of his victims,
and the consequent problems this raised for the pathologists, can be gauged by
the mutilation of one of the heads alone:
Head No. 1 : The head had been severed from the trunk immediately below the
level of the chin, and had been very mutilated by the removal of the skin and
underlying tissues. The nose and both ears had been cut off, and both eyes
removed. A large piece of scalp was missing from the right side of the head, and
most of the skin on the forehead and face had been removed. The lips had been
almost entirely cut away, the two upper central incisor teeth had been drawn,
and the tongue protruded slightly in the gap. Some skin remained on each cheek,
down to the chin and below it.
Furthermore, the neat job that had been made of the dismemberment using only a
surgical knife, clearly indicated a degree of anatomical knowledge. The removal
of other parts of the bodies which would have more accurately revealed the cause
of death suggested that the murderer was also in possession of extensive medical
knowledge. Nevertheless, when news of the disappearance of Isabella Ruxton and
Mary Jane Rogerson as communicated to Edinburgh along with their descriptions,
it was possible to build convincing comparisons with Body No. 1 and Body No. 2 [
click here for Body No.1 and Body No.2 Comparison tables ]
Early in the examination it had been observed that Head No. 1 and Head No. 2
were markedly different in size and shape. Known photographic portraits of the
two missing Lancaster women indicated that Head No. 1 could not be Mrs Ruxton,
and Head No 2. could not be Mary Rogerson. The 'positive' identification was
achieved by means of a photographic comparison of the skulls with the portraits
- a technique never before used in criminal investigation.
Two photographs of each woman was used - a studio portrait of Mrs Ruxton (called
Portrait A.) and a snapshot showing the left side view of the same woman
(Portrait B.). Of Mary Rogerson only two photographs could be found (Portrait C.
and D.), both taken by an amateur and consequently losing some clarity of detail
when enlarge to life-size. Then the two skulls were photographed from four
different angles, matching as closely as possible the positions of the heads in
the portraits. From the life size prints of the skulls and the portraits,
distinctive shapes and features were traced in ink on transparent paper,
subsequently superimposition revealed that Portraits A. and B. (Mrs Ruxton)
fitted well over the outline of Skull No. 2, similarly, Portraits C. and D.
(Mary Rogerson) were found to fit Skull No. 1. Further elaborate photographic
techniques were employed to provide the positive and negative images from the
skulls and portraits which, when superimposed, also showed remarkable
consistency. It should, however, be emphasized that impressive though this
evidence was, it was not conclusive in the sense required by the court - indeed,
defense counsel objected to the admission of the photographs at all, on the
grounds that they were 'constructed evidence, so liable to error'.
Ascertaining cause of death presented predictable problems. In Body No. 1
(thought to be Mary Rogerson), the neck and trunk with its internal organs were
never recovered, making cause of death impossible to establish, though swelling
of the tongue was consistent with asphyxia. Body No. 2 (thought to be Mrs
Ruxton) exhibited a congested state of the lungs and brain which, associated
with the damaged condition of the hyoid bone in the throat indicated manual
strangulation.
Establishing the
time of death became the responsibility of Dr Alexander Mearns of the
Institute of Hygiene at the University of Glasgow. In what was a pioneering
piece of medical detection, Mearns was able, by studying the
life cycle of maggots that infested the remains in the Linn, to establish
that the victims were killed at about the time that Mrs Ruxton and Mary Rogerson
were last seen alive.
Ruxton's trial opened at the High Court of Justice, Manchester, on Monday 2nd
March 1936, before Mr. Justice Singleton. Defending Ruxton was one of the
greatest criminal advocates of his day, Mr. Norman (later Lord) Birkett KC.
The proposition that was to be put so convincingly to the jury over the next
eleven days was outlined by Mr. JC Jackson KC, in his opening speech:
Now, it does not need much imagination to suggest what probably happened in
that house. It is very probable that Mary Rogerson was a witness to the murder
of Mrs Ruxton, and that is why she met her death. In that house the bedrooms are
on the top floor; the back bedroom was occupied by Mary Rogerson, in on of the
front slept Mrs Ruxton with her three children, and on the same floor was also
the doctor's room. You will hear that Mrs Ruxton had received before her death
violent blows in the face and that she was
strangled. The suggestion of the prosecution is that her death and that of
the girl Mary took place outside these rooms on the landing at the top of the
staircase right into the bathroom there are trails of enormous quantities of
blood. I suggest that when she went to up to bed a violent quarrel took
place; and he strangled his wife, and that Mary Rogerson caught him in the act
and so had to die also. Mary's skull was fractured: she had some blows on the
top of the head which would render her unconscious, and then was killed by some
other means, probably a
knife, because of all the
blood that was found down these stairs...
As had been expected, the medical evidence was presented with the same skill as
that with which it has been gathered, and a faultless rendition of his findings
by Professor John Glaister earned him this accolade from the judge:
No one could sit in this court and listen to the evidence of Professor
Glaister, either in examination-in-chief or in cross-examination, without
feeling that there is a man that is not only master of his profession, but who
is scrupulously fair, and most anxious that his opinion, however strongly he may
hold it, shall not be put unduly against the person on his trial.
It was nevertheless this unassailable scientific testimony that weighed so
heavily against Ruxton, and there was very little that his counsel could do to
shake the foundations of the prosecution case. In fairness, though, it must be
emphasized that Norman Birkett's courageous championship of his client was
nothing short of what might be expected from so eminent a defender, and his
attention to detail, to any hint in favour of his client, was untiring.
In the absence of any credible witnesses on the prisoners behalf, Dr Ruxton
himself rather badly, being prone to outbursts of hysterical sobbing and
rambling, illogical accounts of his own behaviour, and his refusal to
acknowledge the truth of even the clearest evidence in as much as it might
incriminate him did much to emphasize the impression of a guilty man bluffing.
In accordance with British legal tradition, Norman Birkett, by calling Ruxton to
the stand, had entitled himself to make his closing speech for the defense after
the prosecution address instead of before it - in this way his words would be
the last the jury would hear before his Lordship's summing up:
It seems scarcely necessary to have to say to you that if you are satisfied
of the fact that in the ravine on that day were those two bodies, identified
beyond the shadow of a doubt, it does not prove this case. If, for example, the
word of the prisoner were true, 'They left my house,' there is an end of the
case. Even though those were the bodies, this does not prove the case against
the prisoner. The Crown must prove the fact of murder, and you may have observed
how much of this case has been mere conjecture. It is not for the defense to
prove innocence; it is for the Crown to prove guilt, and it is the duty of the
defense to propound a theory which would be satisfactory to your collective
mind...
It is never incumbent upon the prosecution in a charge of murder to prove
motive, but they say, 'We will show you the motive; here it is - jealousy
because of infidelity.' I ask you to accept with the greatest reserve evidence
spoken after the event, such as that which has been given in this court from the
servants and others... The doctor is arrested for murder, and how it colours the
mind. This is clear, and I do not seek to deny it, that there were intervals and
periods of the greatest possible unhappiness. You will remember that phrase
employed by Dr Ruxton, a phrase so revealing and so powerful - 'We were the kind
of people who could neither live with each other, nor live without each other.'
Unhappiness was no new thing... The Crown said this was a record of marital
unhappiness, grievous quarrels; she had left him and under the persuasion of her
sister had returned, and there in that family was this canker, this jealous and
so he would kill her. I suggest to you it is fantastical and to suggest that was
the motive and that was the occasion is, in my submission, not to strengthen
this case in any particular but on the contrary to weaken it. For years of
unhappiness has subsisted, and there was nothing revealed to you upon the
evidence which on that occasion should prompt him to do that which the Crown lay
at his charge.
After an impeccably painstaking and impartial summing up, the jury required just
a little more than one hour to return the verdict of guilty against Buck Ruxton.
An appeal was, of course, lodged on Ruxton's behalf, and heard before the Lord
Chief Justice Hewart, Mr Justice du Parq and Mr Justice Goddard. Their
Lordships, rightly, dismissed the appeal and Ruxton was left to face the
hangman on 12 May 1936, at Strangeways Prison in Manchester.
There remains a curious postscript to the Ruxton case. On the Sunday following
his death, a popular newspaper published what purported to be a sealed
confession written by Dr Ruxton and left with instructions that it should be
opened in the event of his execution. However, in a letter received from his
client by Mr Norman Birkett on the morning of the execution, Ruxton thanks his
counsel for the efforts made to save his life, and concludes: 'I know that in a
few hours I shall be going to meet my Maker. But I say to you sir, I am entirely
innocent of this crime.' |
|
BACK TO TOP |
|
Check out
the
latest
Crypt Polls!
|