UK UK - Staffordshire, White Male, 23-39, torticollis (wry neck), buried on his knees, Mar'71

[Bit of hope]

What if this John Doe was the first "test" victim of Anthony Hardy? He sure knew the surroundings being raised there as a child.

ANTHONY HARDY: THE SATANIC RITES OF THE CAMDEN RIPPER - Court News UK

A serial killer born in Winshill, near Burton-on-Trent in Staffordshire (1951).

He met his wife Judith when he was studying engineering in London at the Imperial College and they married in 1972, later immigrating to Australia.

In the early 2000's he killed 3 women and dismembered them. An interesting thing from the above article: "Hardy dressed his victims in a devil’s mask and Mr Men ‘Mr Happy’ socks before taking the pictures".

 

[Al Ka]

PS: I could not edit anymore but just to add - to search for someone who got married in 67/68 and got divorced locally in absentia in 69' - up to perhaps 75'

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Jewellery
Ring - 1 - Ladies 9ct Gold Wedding Ring On Right Finger Manufactured In 1967/1968 By Henry Showell Ltd traced to Jewellery Quarter in Birmingham

I'm intrigued by him wearing a woman's wedding ring.

What makes it a woman's ring other than size (maybe)? Is a woman's band narrower than a man's? Is there obviouisly feminine decoration? If it was smaller in diameter, which finger was he wearing it on? Or was it worn round his neck on a chain? If it was the latter, could it have been a keepsake of a wife who had died?

On one level I'm tempted to assume that his man was reasonably local, based on the fact that he was buried in Staffordshire and the ring was of Birmingham manufacture. However, Birmingham's Jewellery Quarter has been the major jewellery manufacturing for most of the jewellery sold on the UK high street for well over 100 years and it was manufactured to be wholesaled to small jewellers all over the country as well as manufacturing on contract for the big chains such as Samuel. The ring could therefore have been bought almost anywhere in the country.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

PS: I could not edit anymore but just to add - to search for someone who got married in 67/68 and got divorced locally in absentia in 69' - up to perhaps 75'

One point: In 1971 divorce was subject to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 which only permitted divorce on very specific ground. Men could petition on the basis of the wife's adultery alone while women had to cite both adultery by the husband and another agravating factor such as cruelty (DV). I'm guessing that if he divorced his wife for infidelity he probably wouldn't wear her ring as a keepsake even if she handed it back to him.

I think a deceased wife is the more likely.

 

[Lilywhee]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned the pink socks. Those are rather intriguing to me. I dont think it was very common for men to wear anything pink back in the 60's/70's. And where were the rest of his clothes? Had he been sexually assaulted? Just thinking out loud here!

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned the pink socks. Those are rather intriguing to me. I dont think it was very common for men to wear anything pink back in the 60's/70's. And where were the rest of his clothes? Had he been sexually assaulted? Just thinking out loud here!

It might depend on the shade of pink, ie pastel or vivid. The late 1960s and early 1970s were much more colourful than we're used to today and patterns were bigger, bolder and brighter. This was, after all, the hippy/flower power era.

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/sh...lours.jpg&sp=29325a5cf5d4519ebcd38939067e592e

70s Fashion for Men (How to Get the 1970s Style)

 

[dotr]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned the pink socks. Those are rather intriguing to me. I dont think it was very common for men to wear anything pink back in the 60's/70's. And where were the rest of his clothes? Had he been sexually assaulted? Just thinking out loud here!

Glad you mentioned it, considering his socks remained on his body, but nothing else- wondering if this was a sex assault, a gay bashing, or -considering the woman's ring- maybe the uid male was presenting as female ? imo, speculation.
The ropes used to tie his hands and feet apparently came from the Bradford, West Yorkshire. area.

 

[Al Ka]

One point: In 1971 divorce was subject to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 which only permitted divorce on very specific ground. Men could petition on the basis of the wife's adultery alone while women had to cite both adultery by the husband and another agravating factor such as cruelty (DV). I'm guessing that if he divorced his wife for infidelity he probably wouldn't wear her ring as a keepsake even if she handed it back to him.

I think a deceased wife is the more likely.

Interesting information. To clear few things up - ring which was found with him - he was wearing it on his right hand ring finger, hence previous disussion of cultures who wear wedding rings on their right hand.

My suggestion of searches for divorcees - he was wearing wedding ring hence assumption he was still married when killed. He got married some short time before his death (few month up to 2 years based on when ring was made).

If his death had anything to do with his marriage then wife would very likely divorce him shortly after his disappearance (69'-75'). This is of course just an assumption but still would be good to have a look at someone who in Burton upon Trent married in 68' and divorced around 71'. Hope it makes a bit more sense now.

 

[Al Ka]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned the pink socks. Those are rather intriguing to me. I dont think it was very common for men to wear anything pink back in the 60's/70's. And where were the rest of his clothes? Had he been sexually assaulted? Just thinking out loud here!

Pink socks and lady's wedding ring stuck in my mind too. However on reading again on better description of him socks are desribed as - Mustard Coloured Heel And Toe With The Remainder A Pinkish Beige Colour. So, not really pink.

 

[Al Ka]

In up thread someone mentioned that people from India usually wear wedding rings on their right hand.

I found snipped from Burton on Trent history - The town's inner wards, however, remain a deprived area and have a high level of unemployment, notably among the immigrant community from the Pakistani part of Kashmir, which began to arrive in Burton in the mid 1950s.

Burton-upon-Trent: General history | British History Online

I am still trying to find exact location of where he was burried. It was one of two islands between Burton on Trent and Winshill, close to Burton Bridge, just still not too sure which one of the two it was.

Found a bit of better description of how suspects got to that location:

In fact, the body was buried less than 100 yards from the busy Newton Road, just across the River Trent. But, in 1971. There were only two ways to get to the spot, the site of a former flint mill abandoned in the early 19th century. One was across a wooden bridge over the river, now long disappeared. At the time the bridge was gated and securely locked at both ends, ruling it out as the felons' route to the burial site, says Mr Posner.

The only other route, and, indeed, the only route today, is across Burton Bridge to Meadow Road, a narrow and unmetalled track leading to what is today the Washlands Sports Club and, beyond that, Burton Cricket Club. The body would have to have been taken along this track, then carried across fields to what those who left it there would have hoped would be its final resting place.

Story of 'Fred the Head' may be solved as a family comes forward

 

[preacher63]

I shared a tight space with an unpleasant fellow who had that condition,. Wry neck is a new one on me!

 

[Al Ka]

I came across interesting little information below. It gaves me hope it will be solved.

27 JUN 2017 - Staffordshire Police are also only the second force to use familial DNA analysis in a bid to identify the man. Familial DNA generates possible parental and sibling matches from DNA extracted from the man's bone.

Face of man found dumped in shallow grave nearly 50 years ago revealed

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Interesting information. To clear few things up - ring which was found with him - he was wearing it on his right hand ring finger, hence previous disussion of cultures who wear wedding rings on their right hand.

Thanks for reminding me of that - I clearly had a brainstorm.

My suggestion of searches for divorcees - he was wearing wedding ring hence assumption he was still married when killed. He got married some short time before his death (few month up to 2 years based on when ring was made).

But the wedding ring was a woman's ring. Don't you find that interesting? Why would a man be wearing a wedding ring apparently identifiable as a woman's? Apart from anything else this suggests he had unusually small hands for a man.

If his death had anything to do with his marriage then wife would very likely divorce him shortly after his disappearance (69'-75'). This is of course just an assumption but still would be good to have a look at someone who in Burton upon Trent married in 68' and divorced around 71'. Hope it makes a bit more sense now.

IANAL but I think you couldn't file for divorce so quickly just because your spouse had disppeared. They had to be missing a reasonable length of time from which desertion could be reasonably assumed, otherwise you could in theory file for divorce if your partner was missing for a week.

It's similar to having to wait for a number of years before being able to declare a person dead. If the ring was hallmarked in 1967-68 it would have to have been hallmarked between 19 May 1967 and 18 May 1968 (hallmark years run from 19 May for some reason). This man being buried at least 9 months before he was found, so no later than the summer of 1970, we have a very well delineated 2-year period during which the ring had to have been sold. There's nothing to say that the ring could not have been held in stock by a jeweller and been sold/bought as late as the summer of 1970, so maybe just a month or two before this man was buried. I therefore do not think we could be looking at a divorce for desertion in 1971.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

27 JUN 2017 - Staffordshire Police are also only the second force to use familial DNA analysis in a bid to identify the man. Familial DNA generates possible parental and sibling matches from DNA extracted from the man's bone.

Since that report is dated June 2017 it's clear the analysis hasn't produced a result as yet. In the meantime it might help move things forward if the analysis could at least reveal likely surnames to provide something to work on.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Interesting information. To clear few things up - ring which was found with him - he was wearing it on his right hand ring finger, hence previous disussion of cultures who wear wedding rings on their right hand.

Just a thought - there are cultures which wear a wedding ring before marriage on the right hand as an engagement ring and then switch it to the left hand at the marriage ceremony. I think Germany and Austria do this, or at least used to do in the not too distant past.

 

[dotr]

I came across interesting little information below. It gaves me hope it will be solved.

27 JUN 2017 - Staffordshire Police are also only the second force to use familial DNA analysis in a bid to identify the man. Familial DNA generates possible parental and sibling matches from DNA extracted from the man's bone.

Face of man found dumped in shallow grave nearly 50 years ago revealed

Bumping sketch of the man's face.

Scientists have reconstructed the face of Fred the Head, whose identity has never been known (Image: SWNS.com)

 

[Al Ka]

But the wedding ring was a woman's ring. Don't you find that interesting? Why would a man be wearing a wedding ring apparently identifiable as a woman's? Apart from anything else this suggests he had unusually small hands for a man.

I do find it very intriguing. My first thought was and I still do not rule it out that this is actually female. We have seen on this boards that such mistakes do happen quite frequently when remains are skeletonized, even in present days. I know that extensive work has been done on the case by authorities but personally I am not rulling it out yet. Also small hands and tiny frame are supporting my thought.

Dentals - we know that he had upper dentures and extensive work on lower teeth. Last work done around 6 month prior to the death.

There are many discussions on dentals on this boards too, but not sure I have seen yet if dentals of female (shape, length etc) differs in any way from male. @CarlK90245

IANAL but I think you couldn't file for divorce so quickly just because your spouse had disppeared. They had to be missing a reasonable length of time from which desertion could be reasonably assumed, otherwise you could in theory file for divorce if your partner was missing for a week.

It's similar to having to wait for a number of years before being able to declare a person dead. If the ring was hallmarked in 1967-68 it would have to have been hallmarked between 19 May 1967 and 18 May 1968 (hallmark years run from 19 May for some reason). This man being buried at least 9 months before he was found, so no later than the summer of 1970, we have a very well delineated 2-year period during which the ring had to have been sold. There's nothing to say that the ring could not have been held in stock by a jeweller and been sold/bought as late as the summer of 1970, so maybe just a month or two before this man was buried. I therefore do not think we could be looking at a divorce for desertion in 1971.

Thank you for above. Yes, I guess to divorce was more complicated process back then. So that leave just to search for marriages in period from 19 May '67 up to summer of 1970.

India - Immigration details I have located previously of the area of Burton has me quite intrigued too. Pakistani from Kasmir area, Indian's wearing wedding ring on right hand and remains being found on Cricket grounds ... note to myself to look into it further.

Also, I will look into location in near future again as per detailed description posted previously to narrow down approximate spot where he was found.

If anyone locates anywhere picture of the ring please do post it here.

 

[dotr]

Ita with Al Ka's comments above. Re posting some details and thinking this was a well turned out person- caring for his teeth and nails and likely wearing nice socks too. imo, speculation.rbbm.
Who was Fred the Head? Murdered man's identity remains a mystery
"Male, aged 24 to 36, white European, 172cm tall, thin build, found on March 26, 1971"

"The macabre discovery was unearthed around 150 yards from Newton Road recreation ground and within sight of the Burton Flour Mill in March 1971."
874UMUK
874UMUK - Unidentified Male

"Male body was found in a shallow grave in a field off Newton Road, Burton. It is believed he had been there for nine to 12 months. He has a partial upper denture and had extensive dental work done less than six months before his death. His hands were small with short, well-kept nails."

"One ladies 9ct gold wedding ring on right finger manufactured in 1967/1968 by Henry Showell Ltd."

 

[dotr]

Totally out of the blue, but this mp from the US happened to have his photo listed next to" Fred's" and could not help but notice some similarity.Fwiw..
OH - OH - Ronald Tammen, 19, Oxford, 19 April 1953

 

[Al Ka]

Some extra details from book Fred the Head by Michael Posner

• One reason the reconstruction looks so odd is that they deliberately tilted his head to one side to represent the torticollis he suffered from - ie, that may be how he appeared in life. He also had a prominent underbite and his jaw would have stuck out.
• He was wearing nothing but pink socks and was buried in a sitting or squatting position
• His hair was reddish brown and he had well-kept nails. They managed to get some fingerprints.
• The ring on the right ring finger was "a lady's nine carat gold wedding ring". It was one of a batch of 5000 made in Birmingham, and the socks were sold from a stall at Burton Market.
• His ankles were tied together over the socks, and the ligature had long, free ends; the wrists were tied behind his back, but 11 inches apart. The pathologist thought there may have been an erotic component to the bindings
• He had a lot of dental work but it was of very poor quality. A lot of advertising in dentists' publications was done with no results (although apparently the dental work was bad enough that no dentist would want to admit to it being their work). They don't think the dental work was done in England or Wales.