It's specific to Muir. It's in the chapter on Millhouse and immediately before he's writing about the injuries specific to Muir.I'm wondering if what you quote on pg 60 is summarising all the boys murders as reading each case there seemed to be a different skill level used in cutting each, some where a saw did seem to be used.
However looking at the clearest quotes and description of the surgeon Dr Robert Britten-Jones who gave evidence at Neil Muir's trail, it would be impossible for a saw to be used in that case, with the level of skill is dissecting the fingers from the hands and the ball of the femur from the socket of the pelvis.
It's interesting that a butchers bonding skills were quoted for when the muscular tissue was removed. The trial didn't start until around March of 1980, so was this a quote in August 30th 1979 from the paper? Aside from all the depravities Neil Muir when alive and dead suffered, why would they be boning the muscle from the bones anyway?
All standard Dr's graduate with basic surgical knowledge but speicalising in surgery is many more years training. What was being described by Dr Britten-Jones was somebody surgical trained, whether formally or not. Peter Millhouse claims that the skillful surgery was well above his skill and that's believable.
It's a shame the trial transcript of Peter Leslie Millhouse for Neil Muir murder doesn't seem to be added to the SA Supreme Court records for 1980, not sure why?
Maybe to verify about BVE regularly getting his hair dyed and confirming details and dates of that? They were trying to link the hairs found in Richard's clothing to BVE.I wonder why he was a witness? I can't find the court transcripts. Maybe he was a character witness?
Dr Robert Britten-Jones in the quotes printed in the papers at the time of him testifying only describes the way the fingers and hips were disarticulated. He's giving facts. He says this is very skillful and this is correct. He doesn't need to exaggerate he only needed to describe how the body was found.It's specific to Muir. It's in the chapter on Millhouse and immediately before he's writing about the injuries specific to Muir.
There's an array of explanations;
1. The author (Bob O'Brien who was one of the lead investigators on the case) unwittingly summarised injuries of all the boys rather than justones pertaining to Muir.
2. The abattoir worker felt he had to protect his industry and colleagues so was downplayed the skill level
3. Dr Robert Britten-Jones exaggerated the skill level because he might have been on "Team Cops" or "Team Justice" or may have had relationships with cops or prosecutors, or may have even been paid. This cash for comments is used often in criminal trials.
4. Millhouse has downplayed his surgical prowess, or more specifically has exaggerated the skill level required. Maybe what he did as part of his degree was enough?
This is what I think;
- If Dr Robert Britten-Jones is to be believed, then Millhouse is out (he's a 500/1 long shot to be involved anyway IMO)
- But what about Woodards? I think he is also a GP. I haven't seen any information that shows he's had a background in surgery.
- So does that mean there's another Doctor (a surgeon) involved?
- Woodards lived with Mr R (St Peters I think). Woodards and Brown were lovers. Woodards and Brown were also being investigated (just prior to the murders) for drug-raping young men. Police also, some years back, re-focused on the case and said they were investigating "The Business Man", "The Doctor" and the "Male Prostitute". These were the main players. It was easily deduced that these people were Mr R, Mr B and Woodards. Woodards is the doctor. If there was another doctor who was a surgeon involved, then this doctor (rather than Woodards) would be one of the main suspects.
So for the person who sliced and diced Muir to be a practising surgeon, it would mean there's another suspect SAPOL are completely unaware of. Or he is on their radar but for some reason they are prioritising the less involved Woodards.
I think this is all unlikely. To me this case is like a nearly complete jigsaw puzzle. Everything fits. Police know everything fit, just just don't know the finer details and don't have physical evidence (the smoking gun).
This is a very attractive crime story. It's got everything - taboo crimes involving multiple people, suppressed names and constant claims of a cover up. Because of 40 years of Chinese whispers of a cover up, I feel many people try to make this case a lot more complicated than it really is (I'm not referring to you here btw, just people in general). I think some people just want to engineer a "thriller" like it's a movie.
Based on what we know about who the main suspects are, this is what I think happened;
1. Dr Robert Britten-Jones exaggerated the skill level. There's plenty of reasons for this
2. The amount of skill level a standard GP would have has been downplayed
In a nutshell, the average Joe would not be able to make those cuts. But a GP who is not (or has not been) a practising surgeon would have enough knowledge to make those cuts.
ps - on the subject of removing the muscles - I too find this interesting. It seems unnecessary for purpose. It could have been the "doctor" getting in some practice or BVE being a sadistic campaigner.
When I was a kid I saw my Dad and my Grandfather slaughter sheep on different occasions. There were no problems removing the internal organs. You're comparing removing organs that aren't intended to be reused to surgical operations where the organs have to be intact so they can be put into someone else's body.Dr Robert Britten-Jones in the quotes printed in the papers at the time of him testifying only describes the way the fingers and hips were disarticulated. He's giving facts. He says this is very skillful and this is correct. He doesn't need to exaggerate he only needed to describe how the body was found.
There is very little if any room in the ball and socket hip capsule with the bones articulating smoothly against each other and for there to be no marks at all on the bones when the femur was removed is expert surgery. A surgeon doing a hip replacement would possibly mark the ball of the femur bone, knowing it wasn't going to be put back.
A saw would have been used to cut open the sternum to remove the heart and lungs. Ignoring the obvious reason of "Why would you do this as it's not in the abdominal cavity where the disarticulated and debraided limbs were sewn into?), this is also a complicated operation considering heart and lung removals were very rare around the world at that time. I presume the sternum was closed before disposal.
All of the surgery was supposed to take three hours. During normal medical training a single GP would have three hours a week surgical practice on cadavas for a year to get the same result.
This is not BVE, it's almost like someone or more that one person giving a master class to others who also might have participated.
I understand the focus on surgical skill within the framing of a prosecution against Millhouse, which failed and the jury was back in a cracking, decisive 80 minutes.ps - on the subject of removing the muscles - I too find this interesting. It seems unnecessary for purpose. It could have been the "doctor" getting in some practice or BVE being a sadistic campaigner.
I wonder if Muir had some drug debts with some of his murderers?Because he was found so soon after death, it would have been obvious that knives/saws were used. But I can’t help wondering whether there were no knife marks on the ball of the hip because this was removed by some other means - eg twisting it out of the socket. As someone pointed out earlier, there was no need for surgical niceties or preservation of body parts so no need to follow conventional practices. I am probably wrong though because there would have been evidence of a tearing or ripping as opposed to cutting surely?
As for why the fingers were in pieces, well that’s just unnecessary given that they weren’t removed to de-identify him, but left in situ. Someone got carried away? Also, what about Mr B’s evidence that BVE asked him to join in with Mr R because they were going to do some surgery on Barnes? Once poor Muir was in pieces small enough to parcel him up, was all the unnecessary chopping and disarticulation just for fun? And why would you tie his head back on after you’ve gone to all the trouble to cut it off? A scary mind involved for sure.
Psychotic imo, the kind of violent psychosis we might see more often now with ice users. There was also a lot of LSD around then, that might push someone with the bent for mutilation into more extremes.As for why the fingers were in pieces, well that’s just unnecessary given that they weren’t removed to de-identify him, but left in situ. Someone got carried away?
This was the initial thinking of police. Yet some of the injuries inflicted are not even in a drug lords thinking process. I think its muddied the waters the different category of injuries and as I mentioned before the ''differences'' between other victimsI wonder if Muir had some drug debts with some of his murderers?
Pretty much. In Young Blood he said to police that BVE came in to get his hair dyed the day after Kelvin went missing. Must have been a pretty mild flu.Maybe to verify about BVE regularly getting his hair dyed and confirming details and dates of that? They were trying to link the hairs found in Richard's clothing to BVE.
I don't think Muir was killed because of drug debts but I think it's possible he may have been chosen (as opposed to someone else) because of this, or he sustained worse (and unnecessary) injuries because one of his murderers had a score to settle.This was the initial thinking of police. Yet some of the injuries inflicted are not even in a drug lords thinking process. I think its muddied the waters the different category of injuries and as I mentioned before the ''differences'' between other victims
I am not going to catalogue the injuries as they are in this thread already but it feels like 2 different people were involved.
I've read this book but loaned it out, it never came back and wasn't a chaser at the time was glad enough to be rid of it off my shelves.Page 132 - police interviewed BVE over a drug-rape of a young man. This happened in between Langley and Kelvin. The young man had a torn anus. He was picked up by BVE and taken to the Alberton house to party. The man was there but he said the "girls" were. Police asked BVE who the girls were who lived at the house and had not yet returned home. His answer was, "P" and "K". The victim admitted he had sex with "P" but BVE was in the room at the time! BVE denied this. Firman was charged for this but got off.
The boy's name was George, he was 16. This happened around midnight on Saturday 13 Sep, 1982 - 6 months after Langley went missing, 9 months before Kelvin was abducted.I've read this book but loaned it out, it never came back and wasn't a chaser at the time was glad enough to be rid of it off my shelves.
Do we know the timing of when Firman was charged for that rape and why she got off? Was it part of some sort of deal arrangement in the prosecution against BVE?
I think this might be helpful in determining where Firman in the retelling of the stories to Peters, she may have replaced herself with Turtur. Was Firman the only one to face charges of raping a minor? And is this mentioned in Peters diaries?
The page on the right hand side transcribed: