Yeardley:  This episode contains dramatic recreations of historical scenes, and depictions of violence that some listeners may find disturbing. So, please take care when listening. Also, the words spoken by the actors in this series are taken from letters, diary entries, legal transcripts and period newspaper interviews.

[dramatic music]

 Small Town Dicks presents Beyond Recognition, The First Modern Murder.

[somber music]

Jackson  Well, I’ll be honest with you, Fyfe. Remarkable as it may be. Bertie Hammond’s fingerprint work is going to be the death of us.

Yeardley:  Joseph Cooksey Jackson is the lead attorney for the Crown. It’s his job to send Buck Ruxton to the gallows. His right-hand man is Maxwell Fyfe, a powerhouse barrister and a member of parliament with a knighthood in his future. Fyfe stops lifting his bourbon in midair and looks at his boss.

Fyfe:  How can you say that, Joseph?

Jackson:  The man is brilliant, and meticulous as hell. He’s done impressive work on this Ruxton business, pushed the science of fingerprinting into completely new realms. And that’s exactly what I’m worried about. We’re going to be presenting to a jury of laymen, not a group of academics. Oh, for God’s sake, how much science does a butcher know?

Yeardley:  Jackson is a 57-year-old veteran of the UK legal arena. He comes with a reputation as a cunning trial lawyer, a master in the courtroom. Fyfe swirls the bourbon in his snifter and ponders the situation.

Jackson:  You know what the crown wants us to do? Keep the damn thing simple and eliminate any ambiguities. That way we can–

Fyfe:  I know. I know. Make a case beyond any and all reasonable doubt.

Yeardley:  Sending Ruxton to hang rests on the positive identification of the two horribly mutilated people as being Isabella Ruxton and Mary Rogerson. But both sides, the prosecution and the defense, are well aware that trying to sway a working-class northern English jury with forensic pathology that’s over their heads is a recipe for disaster. And Jackson is worried, their presentation is still too scientific.

Jackson:  That’s why it’s imperative that we present a common-sense story that the most common jury can understand.

Fyfe:  Then you’d better not use a word like imperative.

Jackson:  Bravo, Fyfe. [chuckles] Point taken. But back to Hammond’s work. Identifying Mary Rogerson for the jury rests on the dermal fingerprints. And dermal prints have never been used in a UK court case.

Fyfe:  But the prints in the house matched the prints on the severed hand. It’s Rogerson. We have the conclusion, backed up by the FBI.

Jackson:  Hmm.Unfortunately, we’re not trying the case in America. Scotland Yard says, “They highly discourage us from using the dermal prints in court.” They say, “It’s too questionable for them to confirm.” Questionable, huh.

Yeardley:  Fyfe defers to his lead prosecutor.

Fyfe:  So, how do you want to play this?

Yeardley:  Jackson shoots back his whiskey.

Jackson:  I think I have a solution that’ll solve our problem, but I’m not happy about it. It’ll either make our case watertight or blow a bloody hole right through the middle of it. A hole so wide, Ruxton may very well slip right through.

[upbeat music]

Yeardley:  Previously on Beyond Recognition–

Caroline:  Dr. Ruxton charged with murder of nursemaid.

Sue:  Clearly, it was a crime of passion. And he’d been driven to it.

Tom:  Controlling people have to be in control.

Ruxton:  To all my patients, I appeal to you most humbly to remain loyal to me in this hour of trouble. I am an innocent victim of circumstances. Sincerely, Buck Ruxton.

Yeardley:  I’m Yeardley Smith From Audio 99. This is Beyond Recognition. Episode 6, The Buck Stops Here.

[somber music]

 In our last episode, the newspapers branded the Ruxton case the Trial of the Century. Indeed, it’s been a media circus, scrutinized and sensationalized in newspapers around the world. Though the authorities are convinced Ruxton’s the killer, the doctor has thousands of sympathetic citizens on his side. The case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Crown’s presentation will include 106 witnesses, 213 exhibits of evidence and 126 enlarged, very graphic photographs.

 Photos with labels like heart from body number two and brains from body number one, add that to the cutting-edge science that will be presented and it’s a lot for a jury of 12 average men to digest. Red-blooded men who may sympathize with Ruxton, the loyal husband, the revered man of medicine, an all-round good chap whose wife has a reputation for cheating, an unproven reputation. But that hardly matters.

 In 1935, a man is the king of his house, which could mean Ruxton gets away with brutally killing and mutilating two women.

[intriguing music]

 In a closed-door meeting with his fellow Crown Council members, prosecuting attorney, Joseph Jackson, reveals his decision on the indictment. “Drop the charge of murdering Mary Rogerson. The case against Ruxton will be for the killing of one person, his common law wife, Isabella. The groundbreaking dermal fingerprint evidence could be hard for a jury to understand. Mary’s dermal print was not considered strong enough to be principal evidence in a murder charge.” Here’s retired Edinburgh Detective Tom Wood.

Tom:  And of course, the advantage with the Bella case is they have all this evidence of previous domestic violence. So, they have all the background. But crucially, can they identify the body as Bella’s?

Yeardley:  The Crown feels they can. As a matter of fact, they have to. The strategy of prosecuting only Isabella’s murder is sound. But even when focusing on a single murder, success still rests on convincing the jury that this horribly mutilated collection of body parts is Isabella Ruxton. And that is 100% dependent on circumstantial evidence.

 It’s a fact not lost on Ruxton’s shrewd attorney, Norman Birkett. He studied the Crown’s staggering amount of evidence. It may be circumstantial, but it’s damn strong. Birkett’s strategy is straightforward. It’s also his only option.

Tom:  He was going into this case with one thing in mind, and that was to challenge the identification of the body parts. It was as simple as that. He was going to challenge any notion that this was Isabella’s body. What he wanted to do was sow doubt in the mind of the jury. The jury had to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that this was Bella, and then beyond all reasonable doubt that it was Ruxton who had murdered her.

Yeardley:  All Birkett needs is one man on the jury who questions the Crown’s case. One man who’s not convinced that this skinned, unrecognizable body is Isabella Ruxton.

 It’s March 2nd,1936. In the overcast morning chill, the high court of justice in Manchester looks like something out of a Victorian Gothic nightmare. It’s three stories of soot darkened terracotta, all turrets and spires and judgment. Directly behind it is Buck Ruxton’s current address, Strangeways prison.

 It’s the first day of Ruxton’s murder trial. The public has been lining up for courtroom seats since before dawn. Latecomers are offering wads of cash for a position at the front of the line. An army of press from around the world are on hand to document every dark and dramatic moment. At 10:32 AM, Ruxton is led into the courtroom.

[footsteps]

Caroline:  A fanfare of trumpets heralded the arrival of the judge in the crowded court, and then the clerk of the court called the name Buck Ruxton. Dr. Ruxton, accompanied by warders, walked slowly into the dock. He was wearing a heavy black overcoat and a colored tie. He gazed round the court. He sat and asked for a pencil and paper. Evening Dispatch.

Yeardley:  As Ruxton plants himself on the wooden bench in the dock, the eyes of a dozen fashionably dressed women in the gallery follow his every move. He’s had a considerable female following since the pretrial hearings. And so, it begins. The clerk of the court addresses the defendant.

Court Clerk:  Buck Ruxton, you are indicted, and the charge against you is murder. In that honor day, between the 14th and 15th of September, 1935, you murdered Isabella Ruxton. How say you, Buck Ruxton? Are you guilty or not guilty?

Ruxton:  I plead not guilty.

[music]

Yeardley:  In the court of Judge John Singleton, the jury of 12 men listens intently as Joseph Cooksey Jackson begins his opening statement.

Caroline:  Headline: 03 hours and 34 minutes an unhurried voice built up the fabric of a murder case against Dr. Buck Ruxton. The accusing voice was the voice of Mr. J. C. Jackson, who was outlining the case for the prosecution while behind an iron rail, a bear 4ft away. The prisoner himself showed the only signs of emotion by beating a tattoo on his knee with his pencil. Aberdeen Press and Journal.

Yeardley:  Jackson’s three-and-a-half-hour monologue is a thorough summary and a sensational teaser. He paints Ruxton as a violent, abusive husband. Isabella was the innocent, long suffering wife at the mercy of the doctor’s wild mood swings and manic rages of baseless jealousy, jealousy that ended with the brutal murder of Isabella, who had never been unfaithful. There’s simply no proof.

 On the night of September 14th, Mary Rogerson witnessed the attack. And for that, Ruxton killed her too. Jackson is good at his job. He keeps things simple, understandable and dramatic. He talks about Ruxton’s threats to kill his wife for cheating, threats made in front of the police. He quotes, “Shakespeare. He scowls and gestures at Ruxton, who slumps a in the dock between two guards.”

 Jackson has the jury leaning forward in their seats, hanging on his words as he fills them with disgust for the doctor and sympathy for Isabella. He spares none of the ghastly details to illustrate Ruxton’s cool, calculated, deliberate plan to dispose of the bodies, details that reveal exactly what this edgy man tapping his pencil is capable of.

Caroline:  The court listened to a story of scalped corpses, dismembered joints, eyes which had been cut out and ears removed, each fact suggesting it had obliterated some mark of identification. Aberdeen Press and Journal.

Yeardley:  Ruxton’s attorney, Norman Birkett, sits silently taking in Jackson’s performance. It’s impressive. And for Birkett, it’s depressing. The fact that the evidence is circumstantial doesn’t seem to matter to the jury. Over the next few days, a parade of witnesses take the stand, Isabella’s sister, Ruxton’s staff. Sergeant Robert Sloan, you’ll remember as the first responder to the discovery of the body parts in Moffat, Mr. and Mrs. Rogerson, who tearfully describe certain physical characteristics of the daughter they’ll never see again. Missing teeth, vaccination scars, patches of red skin on her arm that never went away.

 Though Ruxton’s not being charged with Mary’s murder, confirming one of the bodies as Mary, bolsters the circumstantial case that the other is Isabella. After all, they were connected as employer and live in employee. They disappeared at the same time from the same location. The two bodies were found together. The Crown’s message to the jury is, “If this is Mary, that must be Isabella.”

 The testimony over the first week is dramatic, intense and damning. The press devours it, feeding the daily scenes and revelations to millions of readers. It all digs deeper and deeper hole for Ruxton. But Birkett is clinging to a thread of hope, the upcoming forensic testimony. If the jury can’t understand what the scientists are saying, his client just might have a chance.

 The day before Professor John Glaister is scheduled to take the stand, something happens. After months of preparation to combat the defense, he’s hit with something he’s completely unprepared for, a blow from his own people. It comes in a last-minute strategy session with the Crown Council team. He tells the story vividly in his book, Final Diagnosis.

John:  I have something to add, I told them, and explained about the maggot evidence. They said, “No, not under any circumstances. You must not put that forward, Professor Glaister.” Their concern was possible impact on the jury. Senior counsel J. C. Jackson said, “The jury are laymen.” For a week now, they’ve been exposed to evidence and exhibits which to them constitute horror. And so far, they’ve stood up remarkably well.

Yeardley:  And descriptions of maggots writhing in eye sockets may constitute a bit too much horror. Retired Detective Tom Wood.

[upbeat music]

Tom:  Now, in these days, you had to keep the jury fit and well, because if a jury member fell out, then the whole trial stopped and had to be started from the beginning again. So, the prosecution were very, very worried that the maggot evidence might just push one of the jurors over the edge.

Yeardley:  But Glaister isn’t a man who’s used to backing down, especially when he believes in something.

Tom:  And Glaister said, “Well, if I’m asked about it or if I’m challenged about the time of death, I’m going to do it.”

Yeardley:  Jackson knows he can’t do anything against Glaister’s icy pushback, except hope that Birkett doesn’t bring up the time of death. And if he does, pray the jury hasn’t just eaten lunch.

 It’s March 9th, 1936, day seven. This is the big draw, the Crown’s make or break maneuver. The scientists, as the expert witnesses, will take the stand. Here’s Tom Wood.

Tom:  It was clear right from the start that the most important body of evidence would come from the forensic scientists, because they had to prove not only the identity of the bodies, but also the murder. It was relished. It was looked forward to for days, because the press too were fixated and the public were fixated with forensic science.

Yeardley:  First up is the guru himself, John Glaister. He’ll testify for almost two days.

Tom:  Glaister hadn’t often appeared in English courts, but Glaister was a master of all the detail. He was the man who considered every angle, and he was never going to be caught out.

Yeardley:  Glaister is going to put on an unprecedented display. It’s a grand forensic show intel. He’s got enormous photographs of the heads and bodies. He points out wounds, bruising, cuts and tissue removal, all done by the murderer to obscure identification. The swollen and protruding tongue on head number two, Mrs. Ruxton, indicates strangulation. That’s just a prelude to the big stuff. The press has a field day with his sensational testimony.

Caroline:  The courier and advertiser, the professor went on to deal with stains alleged to be blood on fittings and furnishings at Dr. Ruxton’s house. Large exhibits were carried into court, a flight of six staircase rails, the bathroom door, the linoleum from the bathroom floor. A number of police officers carried in a large bath, on all of which the professor indicated presence of bloodstains.

Yeardley:  During Birkett’s cross examination, he can’t put a dent in Glaister’s wall of evidence. Here’s Birkett taken from the trial transcript.

Birkett:  Of course, there are many, many occasions when blood is spilled in a bathroom. For example, you could cut yourself shaving and there would be blood.

Yeardley:  Glaister snaps right back.

Glaister:  I should be amazed if I kept myself shaving and found what I saw in this case.

Yeardley:  Birkett asked Glaister, the time of death. Glaister says, “It was 10 to 14 days before the bodies were discovered.” And that is good enough for Birkett. The Crown’s concern about turning the jurors stomachs comes to nothing. The maggots go unmentioned.

 Now, on day eight, its anatomy Professor James Brash’s turn on the stand. He’s armed with his superimposed photographs of the heads of Isabella and Mary.

[tense music]

 But Birkett isn’t having it. He’s instantly on his feet telling Judge Singleton, “The evidence shouldn’t be allowed.” He argues, “It’s not exact. After all, its constructed evidence. It’s not a murder weapon, a bloody knife, for example. It’s something scientists created in a lab.” The judge does not agree. He tells the jury to keep in mind Birkett’s opinion, but rules that the photos “may be of use in some way.” That’s an understatement.

Tom:  The turning point really is the facial superimposition. The detectives in Edinburgh had taken a picture of the skull and then superimposed the picture, a fine portrait picture of Bella on the skull is like something that you would construct out of a horror movie. And it was Brash’s idea. It had never been produced in evidence before.

Yeardley:  Backed by Glaister, it was Brash’s feeling that this would translate to a jury. It’s simple. It’s easy to get, and seeing is believing.

Tom:  And he was absolutely right. People in the court said that they could see that the jury were convinced, that they could see in the body language of the jury. The jury had been sitting forward on their benches, listening attentively to the evidence, trying to figure out what was going on. When they saw that image, they sat back as if to say, “That’s Bella. That’s Bella.” And therefore, if that’s Bella, you’re the man, Buck Ruxton. You’re the man that murdered her.

Yeardley:  And with that, the crowd rests. The fear that the jury would be confused by the scientific, forensic evidence has come to nothing. Now, Norman Birkett is at a crossroads.

Tom:  Birkett had a whole lot of defense experts lined up to come in and counter the prosecution, and he found himself unable to deploy them.

Yeardley:  Birkett had no one who could possibly outdo the prosecution’s case condemning Ruxton. But he wants to exercise his right to have the final word before the jury makes a judgment. And if he’s not calling witnesses or entering evidence, there’s only one thing left he can do, put his clients on the stand.

Tom:  I suppose in Birkett’s mind, he thought, “Well, what is there to lose? He was going hang anyway, so might as well have a last throw of the dice.”

Yeardley:  Ruxton is a wild card. He’s at the end of his tether. But who knows? The doctor is also a smart, passionate man. He may come up with something that’ll blow the jury away, win them over. For Birkett, it’s worth the gamble. After all, it’s not his neck that’s facing a noose.

[somber music]

I

 It’s March 11th, 1936, at the High Court of Justice in Manchester, the nineth day of Ruxton’s trial for the murder of his common law wife, Isabella.

Tom:  Early on, it appeared that he relished the trial. He actually relished being in court. His behavior changed from day to day, hour to hour. Sometimes he would be sitting attentively, writing notes. Other times, he would appear despairing, his head in his hands. Sometimes he would be wild. Sometimes he would appear angry. So, his behavior fluctuated, and his demeanor deteriorated as he went on through the trial.

Yeardley:  Things are not going well for the doctor. The prosecution’s overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence has been devastating for defense attorney, Norman Birkett. Now, the prosecution has rested. With his options down to almost nothing, Birkett has decided to put his client on the stand. A warden walks Ruxton to the stand. The doctor looks exhausted, but this is his spotlight moment. Finally, an ego swelling chance to let the world know his side of things. Birkett approaches.

Birkett:  What were your relations like with your wife?

Ruxton:  Oh, I can honestly say we were the kind of people who could not live with each other and could not live without each other. As the French say, “Qui aime le plus châtie le plus.”

Birkett:  In English.

Ruxton:  It means, “Who loves the most, chastises the most.”

Birkett:  It suggested that you killed your wife.

Yeardley:  When he hears these words, Ruxton loses it, like someone stabbed him in the heart.

Ruxton:  It is a deliberate, fantastic story. You might as well say the sun was rising in the west and setting in the east.

Birkett:  It is suggested that you killed Mary Rogerson.

Ruxton:  It’s all bunkum, I tell you. Bunkum, with a capital B.

Birkett:  After a quarrel with your wife had passed, what were your relations then?

Ruxton:  Oh, well, more than intimate. In fact, many a time, Mrs. Ruxton had come into my surgery with that smile on her lips and said, “I wonder how I could pick a fight with you.”

Birkett:  Your maid, Dr. Ruxton, says that she came into your bedroom and saw you with your hands around your wife’s neck.

Ruxton:  The story is exactly the reverse. It was an occasion of intimacy. I was squeezing her heart and she said, “Oh, let me go.” And the maid heard it.

Birkett:  There was no violence of any kind?

Ruxton:  No, no, no, on the contrary, it was lovemaking.

Yeardley:  This seemingly S&M tinged, fights leading to sex scenario has been a running theme with Ruxton since the pretrial hearings. It’s sexy stuff for the press, and readers eat it up.

Laura:  We have to remember that Buck Ruxton says that they had this heated sex life. That’s his narrative. That’s the way that he describes it.

Yeardley:  That’s criminal behavioral analyst, Laura Richards. She’s the founder of the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service.

Laura:  The things that he made Isabella do sound to me much more like punishment. When she didn’t do things that he wanted her to do, that he would punish her sexually. So, I always exercise caution when I hear the man describe things one way that oftentimes when I speak to the victims if they are still alive. Actually, what went on is something very different.

Yeardley:  Birkett’s questioning continues. He hits all the key accusations against Ruxton. But no, his client says it’s all wrong. He never called Isabella, a prostitute. He said, “She had the mind of a prostitute.” The multiple times he threatened to kill his wife, Ruxton denies them all. He never used the word, kill. “Everything’s been exaggerated, misunderstood.” His domestic workers and others who claim they heard and saw things, they are very much mistaken.

 Birkett brings up the prosecution’s claim that the last time Isabella Ruxton and Mary Rogerson were seen alive was Saturday, September 14th. Now, Birkett wants to know about Sunday, September 15th.

Birkett:  Dr. Ruxton, what was the first thing that happened that morning?

Ruxton:  Well, Isabella came into my room. And of course, as it is normal for us to go out on Sundays for early morning trips, she came in and naturally made a little affectionate approach.

Yeardley:  Birkett asks what happened later that morning. The courtroom is hanging on every word.

Ruxton:  Isabella, in fact, asked me if I minded if she went to Edinburgh. She said she was taking Mary Rogerson with her. I actually let them go, and I heard the vestibule door lock. Click.

Yeardley:  It’s a convincing, detailed, emotional account. Even more impressive when you consider that the moment Ruxton just described, a moment he says was filled with affection and respect between him and his wife, Isabella and Mary were lying in carefully dissected pieces in the third-floor bathroom.

[somber music]

 Now, it’s the Crown’s turn with Ruxton. Prosecutor Joseph Cooksey Jackson is like a hungry shark honing in on chum. Here’s former Edinburgh Detective Tom Wood.

Tom:  What Jackson does for the sake of the jury is rehearse the evidence of the prosecution all over again. Once again, the Master Jackson leaving the impression in the minds of the jury with every word. “You’ve heard the evidence before. Let me just reemphasize exactly how compelling this evidence is.”

Yeardley:  As the hours of questioning go by, the jury hears the whole story again, all the evidence that points to one man, Buck Ruxton. There’s not even a suggestion of another killer. Listening to this replay, Ruxton’s on a mood swing roller coaster. He weeps, he smashes his fists against the bench. He yells, he whispers, he apologizes. Near the end, the doctor snaps at Jackson. Judge Singleton cautions him to leave the confrontations to his attorney, and Ruxton turns to the judge and says–

Ruxton:  “I have a brain of my own and I cannot help it. I am fighting for my life.”

Caroline:  Dr. Ruxton’s dramatic duel with the King’s Council. The cross examination of Dr. Buck Ruxton concluded today. At one point, Dr. Ruxton declared excitedly to prosecutor J. C. Jackson, “It is your duty to see justice, and not put a man on the gallows for nothing. Everyone is against me.” In reply to Mr. Birkett reexamining, Dr. Ruxton said, “As God is my judge, I have never done any act of violence to Mrs. Ruxton or Mary Rogerson.” Dr. Ruxton finally left the box after giving evidence for seven and a half hours. Evening Dispatch.

[somber music]

Yeardley:  In his closing remarks, Birkett works every angle he can, but there aren’t many. He tells the jury that even if they’ve decided that the bodies were Isabella and Mary, that doesn’t mean Ruxton was the murderer. The jury stare at him blankly. The court is adjourned.

 The next afternoon, Friday the 13th, by the way, there’s a mob of spectators outside the courthouse. Far too many to get in, but that doesn’t matter. They just want to be there. Within the walls of the courtroom, the swarm of press from around the world are poised to deliver the final news, the second it arrives. This is Ruxton’s day of reckoning. Judge Singleton gives summation, then addresses the jury.

Singleton:  Let me end as I began by saying, “If there be any doubt in it, he must have the benefit of the doubt. If there be none, let your verdict be equally clear and let justice be carried out.”

Yeardley:  As the jury files out to deliberate, Ruxton is sent back to his cell. He doesn’t have long to wait though. The jury is back in an hour. Ruxton returned to the courtroom. For a man known for violent hair trigger emotions, he’s shockingly calm. He bows to the judge, then stares at a crack in the ceiling. Newspaper accounts reveled in every detail of the verdict.

Caroline:  Sentence of death passed on Dr. Buck Ruxton at Manchester Court yesterday, after a trial lasting 11 days. The jury retired at two minutes to four. They returned at 5 o’clock, and Dr. Ruxton heard their guilty verdict unflinchingly. He took the sentence without a tremor. “I want to thank everybody for the patience and fairness of my trial,” he said. Dr. Ruxton looked fixedly at the judge while the sentence was being pronounced.

 When the judges voice had ceased and the chaplains amen had echoed away, the doctor raised his right hand from the elbow in what appeared to be a Roman form of salute. A warder grasped him by the arm, but he shook himself free and walked towards the flight of steps which he had ascended so many times during the last fortnight. Just before he reached the top, he turned and faced the judge, and again raised his arm in salutation. Then with a warder walking on each side of him and two behind, he passed from the site of the world, the Scotsman.

Yeardley:  Ruxton and his attorney request an appeal. On April 27th, 14 days after the verdict is rendered, the appeal is dismissed. A petition for clemency is circulated in Lancaster. By May 11th, the day before Ruxton’s execution, it’s been signed by more than 6,000 people. The majority are women. But it does nothing to change Ruxton’s fate. He’s scheduled to hang at Strangeways Prison on May 12th, 1936. The end of his life is definite. There will be no loophole, no way out, no last-minute reprieve. Ruxton begins writing letters reaching out to friends, reporters and his attorney Norman Birkett with a singular concern, his children.

Ruxton:  Dear Mr. Birkett, thanks very much, old man, for all you have done. I’m leaving three sweet little children behind. If you can, please be good to them. They are intelligent and good looking. I’ll bless you from above. Yours very sincerely, Buck Ruxton.

Tom:  Once he had been returned to Strangeways Prison, then I think then in the dark of the night, the reality would creep in.

Yeardley:  It’s always a question when a convicted person is about to be executed, will they go down protesting their innocence or will they confess?

 The morning of May 12th, 1936 is dark and chilly. A mob of over 5,000 people has gathered outside the gates of Strangeways Prison, held back by a human barricade of police with linked arms. As 09:00 AM approaches, the chatter and the laughter and the yelling stop. A silence descends.

Caroline:  Dr. Ruxton executed last phase of Moffat Ravine riddle, crime of Frankenstein horror. Dr. Buck Ruxton sentenced to death for the murder of his wife, Isabella, was executed at Strangeways prison today at 09:15. The prison doors were opened, and a warder came out and hung up two notices. One was a certificate that judgment of death was carried out on Buck Ruxton. The other was a certificate of death signed by Dr. S.S.H Shannon, prison medical officer. Mounted and foot police were called in to control the crowd. The Midland Daily Telegraph.

Tom:  There’s nothing so defines a man as the manner of his death. And Ruxton went to his death with courage and dignity. There was no histrionics and no throwing himself about or screaming or shouting. He realized the game was up. He did what he could to make sure that his children were well cared for, and then he made his peace and then he went to the gallows. He was very courteous and very calm.

 I suppose when you think about it, he’d spent all his adult life trying to become the perfect English gentleman. He dressed like one, he behaved like one. What does the perfect English gentleman do in times like that? Stiff upper lip, and go to your death with some dignity. That’s exactly what he did.

Yeardley:  Ruxton goes to his death without confessing to the double murderous. But moments after the execution, something curious happens. Outside the gates of strange ways, a man wedges his way through the throng. His hat brim is pulled low, his overcoat collar is turned up. He approaches a news of The World News reporter and hands him an envelope. The man mutters something. He’s delivering this for Buck Ruxton. Then he vanishes into the crowd.

 Inside is a handwritten note that reads, “I killed Mrs. Ruxton in a fit of temper, because I thought she’d been with a man. I was mad at the time. Mary Rogerson was present. I had to kill her. B. Ruxton.”

 Two days later, the note is printed in News of the World. Jeremy Craddock, author of The Jigsaw Murders.

Jeremy:  There were suggestions that Ruxton had written it in return for payment and money that could be used and put in trust for his three children. But again, there’s no hard evidence for that. There’s no emphatic evidence of that. I’m not sure we’ll know the real answer to that.

Yeardley:  Here again is Tom Wood.

Tom:  The only way that I have satisfied myself that something was genuine or not was by looking at the language used. That’s why I’m 100% certain that the News of the World confession was fake, because it is not written in the same language or the same hand as Ruxton communicated.

Sheila:  The pure tragedy of the story for me resides in the three children.

Yeardley:  That’s Sheila Livingstone. Remember her aunt Susan and her father, Alfred, made the grisly discovery of the bodies under the bridge.

Sheila:  You know, whatever happened to them– Orphans, because their mother’s been murdered and their father’s been hung by the neck until he was dead. They were taken into care, into a children’s home. I can’t imagine anything more horrible and depressing than being taken into a children’s home in 1935 in Scotland. They have touched my heart more than anything.

Yeardley:  Today, the Ruxton killings are not widely known by anyone under 60 in the UK, and hardly remembered outside the kingdom, save for some true crime fans. But the aftermath of the case left a major impact on the people and places that were involved. It changed lives. Most of all, the lives of the three Ruxton children, Elizabeth, Diana and Billy.

Tom:  They were never told what happened to these three most important people in their life. They were simply told that their mother and father and that Mary had gone away on holiday and hadn’t taken them. Can you imagine? Can you imagine anything more cruel than that?

[music]

Yeardley:  In 1936, the ruling on the fate of the children stipulated that their file remained sealed for 100 years. During research for this podcast, we found that Billy may have become a successful TV producer in the UK under his adoptive name. But that’s never been confirmed. And he passed away in 2017.

 Sergeant Robert Sloan’s post Ruxton life was troubled. The unlikely hero was celebrated in Moffat, and he was quickly promoted to inspector in Thornhill, a city 30 miles away. But his promotion was ahead of other deserving candidates in line before him, which sparked jealousy. Certain factions had it in for him.

 During Christmas in 1938, Sloan borrowed a car from a pub owner in Moffat for the night. He returned it the next day during his shift. His enemies on the force reported him. He’d broken two major rules, absent while on duty and forbidden socializing with a bar owner. Captain Sloan was busted down to sergeant. It was a massive blow. He became depressed and developed gastric ulcers. He died in 1940. Today, his former house in Moffat is an Italian restaurant.

[bell ringing]

 The Ruxton home stood empty until the 1980s. It was unlivable after the forensic dissection of the interior. Local kids said it was haunted. No surprise there. In recent years, it has been repurposed as offices for the city of Lancaster.

 After the headlines died down, Professor John Glaister, Professor James Brash and Dr. Gilbert Millar returned to their academic lives, and the forensic dream team quietly regained their anonymity. In fact, when we contacted the University of Glasgow, where Glaister and his father before him had led the forensic department, Glaister’s name was virtually forgotten. No one from the school felt able or compelled to be interviewed on Glaister and his revolutionary forensic work during and after the Ruxton case. Buck Ruxton never left Strangeways. His body was even buried within the walls of the prison.

[music]

 Isabella Ruxton’s remains were carried back to Edinburgh for cremation. On the journey, just by chance, the car transporting her took the route that passed over the bridge at Gardenholm Linn, the stream where her body was discovered. Today, the bridge itself is gone. It was demolished in the 1970s, when the road was straightened and widened. Now, there’s a standard metal truck traffic barrier where the parapet was, where Buck Ruxton threw his tragic packages, so long ago.

 Mary Rogerson’s body was laid to rest in the village of Overton where she was born. Because of the publicity, the family chose to leave the grave unmarked.

Barbara:  I know where she’s buried, in the churchyard of the church I was married in.

Yeardley:  Barbara Woodhull is Mary’s oldest living relative. She was born in 1936, the year after her cousin was killed.

Barbara:  All our relatives are there, my mother and father. Our grandparents are in that churchyard. So, I know all that. I knew all that, because as we were children going putting flowers on other graves, our mother used to [unintelligible  it into us, “You do not tell anybody where Mary is buried, because the family didn’t want anybody to know.” You know, they wanted to be very private about it.

Yeardley:  When Tom was working on his book about the Ruxton case, he made a trip to the small graveyard in Overton.

Tom:  And I stopped and spoke to the church officer who was there, an older man. I said, “Looking for Mary Rogerson’s grave.” And he said, “Why do you want to see Mary Rogerson’s grave? Who are you? What do you want?” [laughs] And I said, “Well, I’m actually writing.” He thought eventually he said, “Come on, I’ll show you.” He said, “But I don’t show people. We leave her alone.”

 It’s interesting. She’s buried right in the middle of a whole lot of her family members, because it’s an old established family down there. And so, she is surrounded, almost as if she’s being protected by her uncles and other relatives who were buried in a circle round the point of her burial. So, she wasn’t protected in life, but she has certainly been protected in death.

[intriguing music]

Yeardley:  Thank you for listening to our 6-part series, Beyond Recognition, brought to you from the team that brings you Small Town Dicks. Now, next week, we’re going to have a very special episode with the usual suspects, Detective Dan, Detective Dave, Paul Holes and me, Yeardley Smith. We’ll talk about the importance of the Ruxton’s case and how police learned to change the way they investigate violent crimes because of it. Until then, you guys are awesome. We’ll see you on the other side.

[somber music]

 Beyond Recognition was written and produced by Peter Gilstrap. I’m your host, Yeardley Smith. Thanks to our story editors, Barbara Bogaev and Sasha Khokha. Logan Heftel was our sound supervisor, with editing and sound design from Soren Begin, Sarah Ma, Christina Bracamontes and Aaron Phelps. Field recordings in Moffat and Lancaster were captured by Sean Kerwin and Kit Cummings. Original music was composed by Logan Heftel. The series was produced by Audio 99 under the direction of executive producer, Gary Scott. Our social media maven is Monica Scott.

 Beyond Recognition was inspired by the book, Ruxton: The First Modern Murder, written by Tom Wood. Among our many other sources are The Jigsaw Murders by Jeremy Craddock, Written in Bone by Sue Black, and the Trial of Buck Ruxton, edited by R.H. Blundell and G.H. Wilson, as well as original interviews and period news accounts.

 The actors in this episode are Ramesh Matani as Buck Ruxton, Jason Kennett as Professor Glaister, Tom Bromhead as Joseph Cooksey Jackson, Richard Greene as Maxwell Fyfe, Time Winters as Judge Singleton and the court clerk, Matthew Waterson as Norman Birkett. Caroline Feraday, reading the news quotations.

[Transcript provided by SpeechDocs Podcast Transcription]