|
Dr. Buck Ruxton
Dr. Buck Ruxton
Neither Mrs. Ruxton nor
Mary Rogerson had been seen after September
14, 1935. Dr. Buck Ruxton, Isabella Ruxton's
husband and Mary Rogerson's employer, became
the prime suspect. Prior to her
disappearance, Dr. Ruxton had openly accused
his wife of unfaithfulness and threatened
her with violence. When first interviewed by
the police, he had a gash on his hand, was
agitated, and made inconsistent statements
about where his wife and nursemaid had gone.
(University of Glasgow)
Buck Ruxton's Finger print form. Ruxton's
prints were taken in Liverpool Prison, 17 th
October, 1935.
(Image courtesy of Glasgow University
Archive Services)
Mrs. Isabella Ruxton, 1935
Mrs. Isabella Ruxton Mrs.
Ruxton was last seen on September 14, 1935. Dr.
Ruxton claimed that she had
gone with Mary
Rogerson to Edinburgh, but her clothing was
still in the house and the car that she used
was
parked outside. (University of Glasgow)
A nursemaid for the
Ruxton children, Mary Rogerson may have
been killed because she witnessed Mrs.
Ruxton's murder. Dr. Ruxton suggested to
the police that the two had left
together because Mary Rogerson was
pregnant and Mrs. Ruxton was helping her
obtain an abortion, which was then
illegal.
(University of Glasgow)
No. 2 Dalton Square was home
of Dr. Buck Ruxton.
(Michael Gradwell)
The bath from the house is now used as a horse trough at Hutton
Police HQ.
(Michael Gradwell)
Police search for evidence in Moffat
(Image courtesy of Glasgow University Archive Services)
Detectives arrive in Moffat
l-r Supt. Adam Maclaren, Glasgow; Chief Constable W.
Black, Dumfriesshire; Assistant Chief
Constable Warnock,
Glasgow; Chief Constable A.N. Keith, Lanarkshire; Det.-Lieut.
Hammond,
finger print expert, Glasgow, and Det.-Lieut. Ewing,
Glasgow.
Police with remains bag.
Skull no. 2, photograph B, 1935
Investigators photographed the Skull No. 2 in
the same orientation as an existing photograph of Mrs. Ruxton.
Then they laid a photo-transparency of this skull over the
portrait to establish that the skull was Mrs. Ruxton's.
(University of Glasgow)
Superimposed outlines of Mrs. Ruxton
and two skulls for comparison, 1935
Outlines of Skull No. 1 superimposed
on outlines of Mrs. Ruxton's portrait. The facial
outlines do not correspond. Outlines of Skull No. 2
superimposed on outlines of Mrs. Ruxton's portrait. The
facial outlines seem to correspond. (University of Glasgow)
Superimposed photographs, Mrs. Ruxton and skull no.2, 1935
(University of Glasgow)
Mrs. Ruxton's portrait with dress
and tiara, 1935.
Finding the Scale: Photographic
reconstruction was an important tool in the
investigation. The skulls of the two victims were
compared with multiple existing portraits to confirm
the identifications. To find the precise scale of
this portrait, a photographer staged a measured shot
of the dress and tiara and superimposed them on the
portrait. (University of Glasgow)
Mrs.
Ruxton reconstructed body
no. 2, 1935.
Reconstructing the Bodies:
Because the body parts of
the two victims were jumbled
and had to be reassembled,
newspapers called the case
the "Jigsaw Murders."
(University
of Glasgow)
The tips of the
fingers of the victims were cut off
to prevent fingerprint
identification, 1935.
The tips of the
fingers of the victims were cut off
to prevent fingerprint
identification. The skill with which
the fingers
were mutilated led
police to hypothesize that the
murderer had anatomical training and
knew how to use a scalpel.
(University of
Glasgow)
Dr.
John Glaister, Jr. (left)
and two other men, at
Moffat during the Ruxton
murder investigation,
about 1935
Portions of the victims'
bodies were bundled
together in bags under
the bridge at Moffat,
England, near the
Scottish border. Other
parts, including their
heads, were strewn about
the banks of the creek
and adjacent areas.
Their task was made
easier by the fact that,
while Dr. Ruxton had
worked hard to render
the bodies
unidentifiable, he had
not been thorough and
made many mistakes.
(University of Glasgow)
Rex v. Ruxton,
Anatomical Report, University of
Edinburgh, 1935.
The Anatomical
Report submitted in the case of
Rex v. Ruxton by James Cooper
Brash of the University of
Edinburgh. Investigators had to
find, and then sort and
reassemble, the remains of the
victims; investigate and
reconstruct the crime; and
marshal the circumstantial and
forensic evidence that could be
introduced as evidence at a
trial. (University of
Glasgow)
Examination of
productions for use in
the trial.
Evidence/productions
are collected for the
trial of the accused, Dr
Buck Ruxton. This
photograph shows
numerous labelled
productions which
underwent stringent
laboratory tests at the
University of Glasgow,
and were then submitted
in court as formal
pieces of evidence; they
include a bath and a
photographic portrait of Ruxton's wife.
(Image
courtesy of Glasgow
University Archive
Services)
Manuscript confession.
1st March 1936: A group
of women having
breakfast on the
pavement outside the
courts in Manchester
before the start
of the trial of Dr. Buck Ruxton. (Fox Photos/Getty
Images)
Police hold back a crowd
of sightseers outside
Strangeways gaol in
Manchester
before the
execution of Dr Buck Ruxton.
(Fox Photos/Getty
Images)
|
