Arrest
On the evening of 12 October Ruxton was arrested by
Lancaster police and extensively questioned throughout the night. When asked to
account for his whereabouts between 14 and 29 September, Ruxton produced a
handwritten document entitled 'My Movements', which he then passed to
investigators before making a voluntary statement based on what he had written.
He then acquiesced to the investigators' interview.
In this interview, Ruxton denied he had ever been to
Scotland after having established his Lancaster practice. However, he was unable
to explain just why his car registration number had been logged by a young
cyclist whom he had knocked over in the Cumbrian town of Kendal on 17
September, which had led to his vehicle being intercepted in nearby Milnthorpe
the same day, as the cyclist had reported his registration number—which he had
logged in his pocketbook—to police when he had failed to stop at the scene of
the accident. Lancaster police suggested to Ruxton this incident was strong
circumstantial evidence as the incident had occurred as he had been driving en
route to Lancaster from Moffat—which he denied. He was further unable to
explain just why a police search of his home the previous day had revealed
extensive traces of bloodstains on the stairs, railings, balustrade, and
various carpets within the property despite evidence of the house being
extensively cleaned, and several walls around the staircase being recently
redecorated. Moreover, he was also unable to explain why traces of human fat
and body tissue had been discovered within the drains of the property, with
much of this material recovered within the section of the drains leading
directly from the bathroom.
"Listen carefully
to me. I intend to prefer a very serious charge against you. You are charged
that between 14 and 29 September 1935 you did feloniously, and with malice
aforethought, kill one Mary Jane Rogerson."--Lancaster Chief Constable Henry J. Vann formally charging Buck Ruxton
with the murder of Mary Jane Rogerson. 13 October 1935.
Throughout the
several hours of questioning, Lancaster police repeatedly conversed with their
Scottish counterparts, who had previously visited Ruxton's household to remove
objects such as sections of wallpaper, carpeting, skirting boards, and
silverware for a more detailed forensic examination at Glasgow University. In
the early hours of 13 October, the finger and palm prints upon the second set
of human hands discovered were found to be a match for impressions upon items
Mary Jane Rogerson had habitually handled at Dalton Square. Upon hearing of
this forensic match, Ruxton was formally charged with the murder of Mary Jane
Rogerson at 7:20 am that morning. When Ruxton heard the recitation of the
charge, he stated: "Most
emphatically not! Of course not! The farthest thing from my mind! What motive
and why? What are you talking about?" Following an appearance in
custody of the Borough of Lancaster Police Court, situated on the ground floor
of Lancaster Town Hall, Ruxton was remanded in custody.
On 5 November he was further charged with the murder of his
wife, whose remains were positively identified using the technique of forensic
anthropology, in which an X-ray of a victim's skull was superimposed on a
photograph taken of Isabella Ruxton in life. Professor James Couper Brash would
later construct replica models of the two victims' left feet in a flexible
gelatin-glycerin mixture; when placed in shoes the women had worn in life, the
replica foot of the first victim recovered from the vicinity of the Annan River
precisely fitted a shoe worn by Mary Jane Rogerson, whereas the replica foot of
the second victim recovered precisely fitted shoes worn by Isabella Ruxton.
Trial
On 2 March 1936 the trial of Buck Ruxton opened at
Manchester's High Court of Justice. He was tried before Mr Justice Singleton
for the murder of Isabella Ruxton, and on this date chose to enter a formal
plea of not guilty to the charge of murder. Following this formal plea, a jury
was empanelled and sworn to duty.
The prosecutors at Ruxton's trial, Joseph Cooksey Jackson
KC, David Maxwell Fyfe KC, and Hartley Shawcross contended that Ruxton,
inflamed by jealousy and paranoia, had murdered Isabella Ruxton and Mary Jane
Rogerson in the family household, and that he had then discarded their bodies
more than 100 miles from Lancaster, in the Gardenholme Linn stream in the Southern
Uplands of Scotland.
In his opening speech to the jury, Joseph Cooksey Jackson
stated to the jury:
It does not need much
imagination to suggest what probably happened in that house. It is very
probable that Mary Jane Rogerson was a witness to the murder of Mrs. Ruxton,
and that is why she met her death. 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 outside
the maid's bedroom, because from that point down the staircase right into the
bathroom there are trails of enormous quantities of blood. I suggest that when
she went up to bed a violent quarrel took place; that he strangled his wife,
and that Mary Jane Rogerson caught him in the act and had to die also. Mary's
skull was fractured: she had some blows on the top of her head which would
render her unconscious, and then was killed by some other means, probably a
knife."
Ruxton's defence counsel, Norman Birkett KC (assisted by
Philip Kershaw KC), based their defence upon their contention that the bodies
had been misidentified, and that the two bodies were not those of Isabella
Ruxton and Mary Jane Rogerson, but of two other unknown individuals, and that,
as such, the evidence presented to the jury was flawed. Birkett and Kershaw
further contended the bloodstains found upon the suit and carpeting Ruxton had
given to the Hampshires, and located within his home following his arrest, had
been innocently accrued throughout the years Ruxton had operated his practice.
Witness testimony
The prosecution called numerous witnesses to outline their
case. Each witness to testify presented his findings to the court with the same
patience and diligence he had used to determine his conclusions, and each was
examined by a combination of Jackson, Shawcross and Fyfe; they would then be
tirelessly cross-examined by either Birkett or Kershaw, who frequently seized
on the slightest discrepancy in the evidence given, and frequently challenged
assumptions made by medical and technical witnesses on each occasion an
opportunity arose. Birkett also frequently offered his own conjecture as to how
some evidence presented could have innocently accrued. For example, on one
occasion, Birkett contended the blood found on the balustrade within 2 Dalton
Square may have accidentally spilled there through a birth, an abortion, or a
woman's menstrual cycle occurring within the property.
Despite both defence counsels subjecting the numerous
eyewitnesses, and the medical and forensic experts whom the prosecution
introduced as witnesses, to intense cross-examination in an effort to challenge
their findings, the vast majority of prosecution witness—including all medical
and forensic personnel to testify—remained steadfast as to his conclusions
regarding the identification of the victims, and that their murders had been
committed by Ruxton at 2 Dalton Square. Nonetheless, Ruxton's defence counsel
did occasionally succeed in getting a witness or expert to concede as to a
possibility of an alternative explanation as to his or her findings, or recollections.
Defense testimony
The sole witness to testify on behalf of the defence was
Ruxton himself, who—upon the suggestion of his defence counsel—testified on the
ninth day of the trial. Overall, he conducted himself poorly on the stand,
being prone to bouts of hysterical sobbing as he clutched a silk handkerchief
and hysterically claiming that he had last seen his wife when she had taken
Mary Jane Rogerson to Edinburgh to discreetly arrange an abortion for her. He
readily admitted to having frequently argued with his wife over her alleged
infidelity and justified the mental and physical hardships to which he had
occasionally subjected his wife by simply stating, "Who loves most, chastises most."
Despite this admission, Ruxton was insistent that both women
would be found alive and further stated that if the actual identification of
the bodies was correct, his "happy
home" was now in tatters. He ardently denied the earlier testimony of
various prosecution witnesses, whom he frequently accused of either lying or
simply being mistaken, and frequently gave rambling, contradictory accounts of
his own behavior and actions prior to his arrest when questioned by both his
own defence counsel and when subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution.
Closing arguments
The trial of Buck Ruxton lasted eleven days, with the
majority of the testimony delivered being from eyewitnesses and from medical
and forensic experts who testified on behalf of the prosecution. In his closing
argument delivered on behalf of the prosecution, Joseph Cooksey Jackson
summarised the testimony delivered by each of the medical and forensic experts
regarding the painstaking identification of the victims, and how items used to
conceal the remains could be traced to Dalton Square, including a section of
luxury sheeting wrapped around several sections of the bodies that had been
proven to precisely match the sheeting from the bed in the master bedroom at
Dalton Square. Outlining the inconsistencies in the accounts Ruxton had given
to numerous individuals as to the whereabouts of his wife and maid, Jackson
reminded the jury of the eyewitness testimony delivered by numerous individuals
who had earlier testified, before turning to Ruxton's exhaustive efforts to
destroy evidence and pacify Mary Jane Rogerson's parents as to their daughter's
whereabouts in the weeks between the murders and his arrest. In reference to
the actual motive for the murders, Jackson suggested the jury look no further
than Ruxton's obsessive jealousy and violent temper.
In accordance with British legal tradition, Norman Birkett,
having called his client to the stand, had entitled himself to make his closing
argument on behalf of the defence after the prosecution address, as opposed to
before the prosecution. In his closing argument delivered on 13 March 1936,
Birkett reiterated the defense’s case that, although the victims were indeed
two women who had been murdered, the remains were not those of Isabella Ruxton
and Mary Jane Rogerson, as the Crown had alleged they were, and that the idea
that the motive for Isabella's death had been Ruxton's suspicions of his wife's
infidelity was merely conjecture. Birkett further emphasized that, although
some of the testimony delivered had allowed the possibility the bodies may have
been those of Ruxton's wife and family maid, that these conclusions been drawn
in part from circumstantial evidence and that this evidence still did not prove
Ruxton had been their actual murderer. Birkett then emphasized that in any
British murder trial, the burden is not upon the defence to prove innocence,
but rather on the Crown to prove guilt.
Upon completion of both counsels' closing arguments, Mr
Justice Singleton delivered his final instructions to the jury. This address
lasted for several hours, and in reference to all evidence and testimony which
had been presented at the trial, Judge Singleton instructed the jury that
Ruxton must be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt that may exist in
their minds, adding: "If there is an
avenue, let him walk down it to freedom, but if there is not, he cannot."
Following this final instruction from Mr Justice Singleton,
the jury retired to consider their verdict.
Conviction
Following the closing arguments and Judge Singleton's final
instructions, the jury retired to consider their verdict; they would deliberate
for just over one hour before returning a verdict of guilty against Ruxton.
Consequently, Mr Justice Singleton sentenced Ruxton to death. When asked by
Judge Singleton if he had anything to say in response to the verdict and
sentence, Ruxton responded by stating, "I
am very sorry", before politely thanking the court for its patience
and the fairness of his trial. Ruxton then informed the judge of his intentions
to appeal the verdict.
Appeal
Ruxton did file an appeal against his conviction. In this
appeal, Ruxton contended that in the judge's final instructions delivered to
the jury, the jury had been urged to consider prosecution testimony pertaining
to bloodstains found upon the suit Ruxton had given to the Hampshires which had
been introduced as evidence, but that he had not instructed the jury to also
consider the testimony also delivered by a prosecution witness who had conceded
that the bloodstains upon the garment may have originated from completely
innocent sources. Furthermore, the appeal stated that a forensic examination of
his vehicle—contended by the prosecution to have been the vehicle used to
transport the bodies—had revealed no traces of either mud or blood. Ruxton thus
contended that the cumulative effect of all matters rose were tantamount to a
substantial misdirection. As such, Ruxton contended the verdict should not be
allowed to stand.
This appeal was heard at the Court of Criminal Appeal by the
Lord Chief Justice (Lord Hewart), Mr Justice du Parq, and Mr Justice Goddard on
27 April 1936. The appeal was dismissed that same day as being "insufficient as to even remotely
suggesting" any form of misdirection on the part of the judge at
[Ruxton's] trial.
Execution
In the hours immediately prior to his execution, Buck Ruxton
wrote a letter to his chief defence counsel, Norman Birkett KC In this letter,
Ruxton thanked Birkett for the skill in which he had conducted his defence,
before stating: "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."
Despite a petition from Lancaster residents urging clemency
for Ruxton having collected over 10,000 signatures, Ruxton was hanged at HM
Prison Manchester on the morning of 12 May 1936. His executioner was Albert
Pierrepoint.
"I killed Mrs
Ruxton in a fit of temper because I thought she had been with a man. I was mad
at the time. Mary Jane Rogerson was present at the time. I had to kill
her."
Buck Ruxton's brief confession to the murders dated 14
October 1935 and published the day after his execution.
The day after Ruxton's execution, a Sunday newspaper
published a brief handwritten confession, written by Ruxton the day after his
arrest, and which he had instructed be opened only in the event of his
execution, or returned to him should he be acquitted. In this confession,
Ruxton admitted to killing his wife while in a state of jealous fury, only to
be interrupted in the act by Mary Jane Rogerson as a result of which he "had to [also] kill her".
Aftermath
Despite intense police searches, the torso of Mary Jane
Rogerson was never found, having likely flowed into the Solway Firth. The
remains of her body actually recovered were buried in a churchyard in the
village of Overton.
The area in and around Gardenholme Linn where Ruxton had
disposed of the dismembered body parts of Isabella Ruxton and Mary Jane
Rogerson would become colloquially known in and around Moffat as "Ruxton's Dump".
The house on Dalton Square where the murders were committed
would remain empty for decades. In the 1980s the building underwent substantial
internal renovation, particularly the bathroom, which would become architects'
offices. The building itself remains non-residential. The bath in which Buck
Ruxton dismembered his two victims was removed from the property to be used as
evidence during his trial. The bath was later used as a horse trough by the
mounted police division at Lancashire County Police headquarters, in the civil parish
of Hutton, Lancashire, and is currently on display at the Lancashire Police Museum
at Lancaster Castle.
Elizabeth, Diane and William Ruxton are believed to have
been brought up in an orphanage in the Wirral.
Media
The case of the "Bodies
Under the Bridge" has been dramatized by British radio scriptwriter
and screenwriter Harry Alan Towers as part of the radio crime drama series,
Secrets of Scotland Yard. This episode, entitled "Dr Ruxton Axe Killer", was first broadcast in
approximately 1950.
The American criminal justice television series American
Justice has also broadcast an episode focusing on the murders committed by Buck
Ruxton. Commissioned by the A&E Network, the episode focusing upon the
Ruxton murders was first broadcast in December 2000.
Catching History's Criminals, a BBC Four forensics series,
has also broadcast an episode focusing on the case of Buck Ruxton. This
episode, entitled "A Question of
Identity", was first broadcast in June 2015.
The first book exclusively devoted to the murders committed
by Buck Ruxton, Medico-Legal Aspects of the Ruxton Case, was co-authored by
John Glaister Jr., and James Couper Brash. This book was released in 1937 and
focuses primarily on the innovative forensic techniques used both to identify
the victims and identify the locations of their murder and dismemberment; thus
ensuring the conviction of their murderer.
Notes
Although Ruxton and
Isabella never married, she adopted his surname, and both presented themselves
as a married couple.
When asked about his
relationship with Isabella at his subsequent trial, Ruxton exclaimed: "We were the sort of people who could
not live with each other or without each other".
Although Isabella was
an outgoing woman who enjoyed socialising with leading Lancaster residents and
was a popular guest at local functions, no solid proof was ever provided to
support Ruxton's claims she had ever been unfaithful to him. Nonetheless, one
Lancaster resident would later state that Isabella Ruxton had indeed kept
regular company with Robert Edmondson.
When Ruxton left his
children in the care of the Morecambe dentist and his wife, the couple noted
one of Ruxton's hands was heavily bandaged. When the couple questioned him as
to how he had acquired the wound, Ruxton claimed to have cut his hand while
opening a tin of fruit for his children's breakfast that morning.
The following
morning, Ruxton visited the Hampshires to request Mrs. Hampshire cut off the
name-tag upon the suit.
Professor Glaister's
initial theory the murderer held extensive surgical knowledge was further
supported at the formal autopsy by the fact a human body is almost impossible
to dismember with a knife at the joints without a thorough knowledge of human
anatomy. From this, Professor Glaister determined the murderer almost certainly
worked in the medical profession.
Mearns' deduction that the victims' remains had lain in the location
in which they were found for this period of time would subsequently prove to be
vital circumstantial evidence at his trial attesting to his guilt.
Overall, numerous
national eminent experts were involved in the identification of the two bodies:
* John Glaister Jr. Regius
Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of Glasgow
* Dr. Gilbert Millar.
Lecturer in pathology at the University of Edinburgh
* Sydney Smith. Regius
Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of Edinburgh
* Arthur Hutchinson.
Dean of the Edinburgh Dental Hospital and School
* Thom Davies.
Professor of Pathology at the University of Glasgow
* Professor James
Couper Brash, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Edinburgh
Having been placed
under arrest, when closing his practice, Ruxton placed a notice on the window
of his office, urging his patients and the Lancaster community in general to
maintain belief in his innocence, adding, "I
am an innocent victim of circumstances."
A dentist named James
Priestley would also positively identify dental work upon the teeth still
located within the victims' heads to that he had performed upon both victims in
life.
Birkett and Kershaw
did object to the prosecution submitting the superimposition of the photographs
of Isabella Ruxton and her skull before the jury as inadmissible evidence on
the grounds this was "constructed
evidence and thus liable to human error". Nonetheless, this objection
was overruled.
A textiles expert had
earlier testified at the trial that the pieces of sheeting wrapped around the
bodies had a unique flaw in the threading, as had the sheeting in the master
bedroom. This expert had stated that the flaw indicated that all the threading
he had been asked to examine had originated from the same loom.
No comments:
Post a Comment