I’ve started the year on a positive foot, by knuckling down to a gritty task I’ve been putting off for ages – writing a dedicated Somerton Man page for the blog. OK, it’s not going to oust Gerry Feltus’ splendidly detailed “The Unknown Man”, but it covers quite a lot of ground in a thousand words. And the pictures are all basically on the money. Which is nice.

However, the reason I had been putting this off was that I wanted it to somehow reflect the edges of our knowledge about the Somerton Man, rather than get knotted up in a whole load of Wikipedia-esque meanderings. (I’m not a committee, and I didn’t want to write like one.) And yet the big question is surely… where are the edges? And what exactly is the difference between an ‘edge’ and a ‘brick wall’, hmmm?

As of early 2014, I don’t think the text is going to help us, not unless Naval Intelligence in Melbourne had (and still has!) an unannotated photograph of the cipher page – basically, I have more than a sneaking suspicion that we’ve been starting from a codicologically broken version of the page that will never sufficiently support us in our attempts to read it. And so all we have is The Man himself, in all his unidentifiable obscurity.

But we do also have the nurse, the mysterious Jestyn / Jessie / Jessica / Jo / Tina / Tyna. These days, one question I keep coming back to is whether “Jestyn” makes sense in the way she (apparently) claimed it did. I struggle to believe that particular story wholeheartedly; and when I asked Gerry Feltus about this recently, he seemed to share more than a few of my doubts. In fact, it was a bit spooky that we had travelled substantially different paths but reached almost identical positions.

At the same time, while I (almost) always enjoy Pete Bowes’ Somerton Man musings and thoughts, there’s something about his speculative take on the Unknown Man’s underdaks that rings true for me. Really, only someone answering to the name “Keane” would have “Keane” on their underpants, so I don’t honestly see any alternative to the idea that, at least some of the time, the Unknown Man did go by the name “Keane”… and if no such person existed or was missing, then it must have been a fake identity. After all, the problem with the laundry theory is that the grundies he was actually wearing had no name on. So how do you get them clean, then? That’s a mystery all of its own, I’d have thought.

I don’t know: maybe the missing link will turn out to be a Mr Keane / Styn, who changed his name as often as his underwear, and who was sweet on tiny little Jessie Harkness. Maybe Jestyn was comfortable with being Jess Styn, but didn’t want to be Jess Keane? If this is in some way right, why was the Somerton Man’s underwear Styn-free? Maybe we’ll find out in 2014, who knows!

124 thoughts on “New Somerton Man page…

  1. M: that looks like complete dynamite! Are you that “Maria” or a descendant of her?

  2. Don’t say anymore Maria.

  3. Celestine on January 11, 2014 at 8:41 am said:

    That certificate is not in accordance with any certificate issued by an Australian State or Territory. It is implausible because Jessica was at nursing school in the years preceding 1942, not giving birth to children. It also bears the hallmarks of having been tampered with. It is an offence in most states to produce false representations of certificates of registration of births, deaths or marriages. I have sent relevant copies to the authorities to verify its authenticity.

  4. Why R. I am tired and I have had enough. Why not say anymore? So you can cash in on my misery like you have recently done. It’s time people knew the facts and the home truths.

    Yes Nick I am connected to the Maria in question.

  5. You have got the wrong Jessie Harkness.. Maria. There were actually two of them. Separate identities and separate people. Good luck with finding your family.

  6. Who said it was issued in Australia Celestine?

  7. There is actually more truth to that certificate than you all know.

  8. M: now that I’ve properly rubbed the sleep from my eyes, this certificate looks very much like a BFF (big fat fake), adapted from the 1959 BOMFORD South Australian birth certificate that was used to try to smear Obama back in 2009. But thanks for sharing your Photoshop skills with us, very much appreciated.

  9. I agree nick. He has photoshopped the pants off that number.

  10. But the truth is powerful

  11. I think R has the truth.

  12. Kaizokugari on January 11, 2014 at 7:21 pm said:

    And I think, this trollfest gets more and more amusing even with 2013 on our backs.

  13. Celestine on January 12, 2014 at 12:59 am said:

    I do not understand the rationale of these people, who simply direct more attention towards Jestyn when they really seek to have her identity concealed. Muddying the waters isn’t going to restore her reputation. If anything does, it will be the truth. Until then she will remain as she is now: a suspect in a murder case. And yes, the lividity in the head does indicate interference with a corpse and cannot be explained by other means. The science does not lie and dead bodies tend not to move themselves.

  14. B Deveson on January 12, 2014 at 1:56 am said:

    The creases/folds are identical to those in the Bomford/Obama invented certificate, and the creases do not disrupt the printing at all.

  15. Nick, sorry to be pedantic, but I cannot understand what you mean by “unannotated picture of the cipher page”
    What annotations are you referring to, and what cipher ‘page’ are you talking talking about.
    All we have ever had is the retouched image of a faint indentation found on the back of a book of verse. What do you have?

  16. Furphy on January 12, 2014 at 8:19 am said:

    That typewriter font looks far more recent than 1942 to me.

    Also, the father’s place of birth would normally include the country at least (e.g. “U. S. S. R.” or “Russia”), not the bald “Moscow” we see there.

  17. .. I’ll try this one skipper. Earth to Dome, come in …

  18. Pete: sorry, mate, saw your comments but have been typing away like a crazy thing on my next TL;DR post. What’s up, needlessly hairy man? 🙂

  19. ^ up there squire, the proletariat needs an answer or two

  20. Pete: if you look closely at the highest-resolution Somerton Man “cipher” page, you can see that the dark lines are drawn in marker pen on a non-absorbing surface, yielding slips, spots, and sharp edges. If a marker pen had been applied to the original printed paper stock, it would have been absorbed into the paper, causing halos, blooms, smudges, etc.

    Ergo, the marker pen lines we see were applied to something else apart from the original page: either to a photograph of the original page, or perhaps to a transparent sheet placed immediately on top of the original page.

    Ergo, there is a good chance that there may still be a photograph of the original page without the extra layer of annotations added to it.

  21. When did the trace on a photographer’s plate of an image taken from the back of a book become a cipher page Nick? – or are you just keeping the staff happy with the right words. You cypher gurus are a little precious that way.
    But you are also saying that there is more, that the four known lines – plus or minus the cross-outs and false starts – was just one {really untidy} block of code that was taken from a much larger sheet that held many more similar and possible just as untidy blocks of code, is that what you are saying when you write this: a codicologically broken version of the page?
    English is our mother tongue too old lad, and like cricket we don’t do too bad at it.
    What’s next?

  22. Cellophane celestine. You say that Jestyn is “a suspect in a murder case ” . There was never any proof of murder. And who’s “case” ? Your shabby effort of an investigation? Get real you shmuck!!!! Your not the police .

  23. Pete: you can see traces of the original faint writing peeking from underneath a number of the (marker pen) letters – I don’t believe SAPOL made the cipher up, but I’m far from convinced they got every letter bang to rights. It would therefore be nice to see the original page without the marker pen overlay, nothing more complex than that. There was a little more on the same page (e.g. the phone number) but we mere plebs didn’t get to see that either.

  24. I’m not sure how to post here but I’m going to try…

    Does no one else here see a shocking similarity in Thomas L Keane’s signature (army files) and the clothes found in the SM’s suitcase. The “T” of T.Keane is virtually identical.

    NB. I don’t believe that SM was T. Keane but I do think that he somehow had his clothes!

  25. I posted links but they didn’t get through! Maybe Nick can catch them and post them?

  26. misca: I agree that the “incomplete T” is a reasonable match but the rest is a bit wobbly. It might therefore be worth asking Thomas Lawrence Keane’s family if they have any other signatures by him to compare this with… a job for another day. *sigh*

  27. [Troll Probability: High]

    Joal Leahy and James Thomson are the same person. They are the trolls . Be careful if they try and befriend you.

  28. So I am using a different email address because this website won’t let me post under the other one. I am not a troll. I am genuinely interested in this but admit I have very little to offer. Quantum computers and said to be able to decode at a level not yet achieved. Is this somethng you have considered?

  29. Hannah: it’s a good question, one that I’ve been preparing a post on for a while… and hope to put online here quite soon.

  30. B Deveson on January 17, 2014 at 12:53 am said:

    I remember seeing an image of black ink pen drawing of a woman, apparently Jestyn, sitting cross legged on a bed in Alf Boxall’s copy of the Rubaiyat. But I can’t find the image now. The drawing is a profile, and Jestyn, if it is Jestyn, appears to be small and elfin, which is consistent with what we know, or think we know, about Jessie Thomson. The woman has a strange hair style for the 1940s; quite short straight black hair with a bit of a duck tail at the back. I have looked at several hundred images of women’s hair styles from the 1940s an I can’t find anything remotely similar.
    Something really odd must have been going on. Why would Alf give the book to his wife? The only explanation I can come up with is that the book was intended for Alf’s wife.

  31. B Deveson: I don’t remember seeing this image on the web, but it’s in Gerry Feltus’ book, p.23. It’s (presumably) a drawing of her sitting cross-legged sideways, looking at the viewer over her left arm. In general, I think it looks more a “remember me like this” drawing to me than a “give this to your wife” drawing, but make of that what you will.

    For what it’s worth, I think Jessie Harkness copied the verse, drew the picture, then signed her name (as “Jestyn”), hence the change in ink density between the verse and signature. Of course, Pete Bowes will object that no balding Pom could possibly have got such a thing right, but there you go, it is what it is.

  32. Is the woman wearing a fedora-type hat? If so, I freeze framed it from the interview with Alf. I have never been sure if JEstyn drew it or if it was printed in the book. If you review the youtube of the interview, you can “catch” the image.

  33. Why is it supposedly unknown who found the book in the car? It was in the newspapers for one day. They printed the man’s name.

  34. The hairstyle sounds like the ‘gamin’ or ‘gamine’ style popular among the beat generation in the late ‘forties and early ‘fifties. Associated with France. Audrey Hepburn wore it at one stage. It has been revived in recent years.

  35. Yes. I agree. It looks hand drawn from Jessie. Some of her surviving family are painters and artists.

  36. a friend on January 17, 2014 at 6:47 am said:

    The picture is one of the original illustrations in the book. There are several other such pictures drawn in much the same way.

  37. At Misca : what is the mans name who found the book ?

  38. B Deveson on January 18, 2014 at 2:23 pm said:

    Misca and Greg,
    Gerry Feltus says (pp104-5) that “Ronald Francis, a businessman from Jetty Road, Glenelg” reported that the Rubaiyat had been found in the back of his car by his brother-in-law about the time SM was found dead (also said to be at the time of the air show in November).
    The only problem is that there ain’t no Ronald Francis that fits this description. Detective Len Brown (notes made in 1987) said “Chemist at Glenelg found Rubaiyat of O. K. on back seat of car.” and “threw book into motor car outside chemist shop.” The car is stated to have been parked in Jetty Road, Glenelg.

    I think the whole “Ron Francis” story doesn’t ring true, and that is why I have investigated “Ron Francis”, but without success. There is no “Ronald Francis” listed in the 1950 Glenelg electoral roll (and a few years before and after). And the “Universal Business Directory for South Australia” for 1950 does not list a “Ronald Francis”. I particularly looked at doctors, pharmacists, dentists. optometrists, and various other categories of business people. No luck. But, I could have guessed that “Ron Francis” was not the chap’s real name given the cover up regarding Jestyn’s real name.
    So, what is the real identity of the “Ron Francis” and why was his true identity held back?
    I find it more than a bit suggestive that, in a case of probable poisoning, the Rubaiyat was found, apparently discarded, outside a pharmacy.

    I suspect there is something more than the identity of “Ron Francis” being obscured here. Thus far I have put together a partial list of all the businesses in Jetty Road at the time. Still no luck. I am assuming that we can believe what Brown and Leane said; that the man was a businessman who lived in Glenelg and his car was usually parked on Jetty Road. Presumably he either worked in Jetty Road, or lived there.

    Feltus went on to say (page 105) “When Francis requested that his identity not be disclosed, and gave his reasons why, it was not a difficult decision for Leane to make, and he readily agreed to the request. He knew he would be hounded to reveal the identity of the person, and curious people would continually speculate on the subject. But did it really matter if the discovered was a doctor, chemist, dentist, jeweller, business person or a male or a female?”

    The addresses of the Pharmacies in Jetty Road in 1949 (data from trade directories and newspapers) were:

    Fisk’s Pharmacy 25 Jetty Road, Glenelg
    Freeman Chemists Jetty Road, Glenelg
    Paul’s Pharmacy 118 Jetty Road, Glenelg
    Pier Pharmacy 14 Moseley Square, Glenelg
    National Pharmacy 62 Jetty Road (in 1945) Glenelg. No longer there in 1948?

    D’Arcy Kenneth Robert Cock Pharmacist at Fisk’s Pharmacy
    Lionel Peter Nunn owner? of the Pier Pharmacy. Lived at Phillips St. Glenelg
    Robert W Fox Pharmacist and chiropodist. Pier Pharmacy and elsewhere

    1950 Commonwealth Glenelg Electoral Roll

    Freeman, Charles Herbert, 31 High st, pharmacist
    Freeman, Colin Charles, 31 High st, chemist
    Beilby, Jack Canavan, 1 Olive st. pharmaceutical chemist
    Cock, D’Arcy Kenneth R., St Peters st, Da Costa Park. pharmacist
    Dunn, Albert. 9 Sussex st, industrial chemist
    Farrell,. John Francis, 5 St Peters st, chemist’s asst
    Hall, Irvine Dawson 15 Maturin rd, chemist
    Hardie, Bruce. 5b Chester st. industrial chemist
    Hulbert, Russell George. 4 Elder ter. chemist
    Johnson, John Kenneth, 23 Farr ter. pharmacist
    Johnson, Leonard, 62 Brighton rd. pharmaceutical chemist
    McCaffrey, Laurence Ambrose. 23 Collet Ter, chemist
    Taylor, Ronald Norman. 5 Gordon St. pharmacist
    Moriarty, Daniel Francis, 11 Maxwell ter, pharmacy student M
    Parham, Gordon Redvers Buller, 37 Moseley st, chemist M
    Summers, David Forrest, 11 Gordon St. industrial chemist
    Tiver, Allan Godwon, 33 Pier st, chemist M
    Upton, Harold Charles H. J.. 24 Winston Cres. chemist

  39. B Deveson on January 19, 2014 at 12:57 am said:

    I note that Prof. Abbott lists the Pakies Restaurant guest book in the “Primary source material on the Tamam Shud case”.

    So, what is in this guest book that has any connection to the SM case? My guess is that Jessie’s name, probably her signature, appears somewhere. A specimen of Jessie’s hand writing would settle the argument about her authorship of the hand writing in the Rubaiyat.

    Pakies was a well known haunt of left wing intellectuals, bohemians and artists of various sorts from the 1929 to 1966. Address: 219 Elizabeth St, Sydney.

    Jessie’s gamine hairstyle marks her as a bohemian, so I expect that she would have visited Pakies at some stage. It seems that Jessie’s father may have been involved with the Frankston theatre group in 1947, and Jessie had an interest in ballet. Unverified reports suggest that Jessie saw herself as an intellectual.

  40. BDeveson,

    Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to read Feltus’ book. Thanks for the information you have provided. I’m not sure why this person’s identity was and still is being held back but it was listed in one newspaper prior to the whole chemist, “back seat” spin and I suspect, it might have been held for similar circumstances as “Jestyn”‘s. There was one article where they gave his name and then, every article subsequent to that one mentioned only the “business man”, “chemist” and the “brother-in-law”.

    The man was not a chemist and he not indicate clearly where he found the book. His middle name was “Francis” and he was living on Partridge Street.

    Again, I don’t understand why his name was suppressed but I would suspect one of the following:

    He may have found the book at his place of work and rather than turn it in, he kept it until he came to realize it’s significance and thereby, was afraid that he could lose his job.

    He was involved in an extra-marital affair which may have been exposed if his details and where he found the book were revealed.

    His “girlfriend” may have been the one to find the book.

    The reason I suggest the extra-marital affair is that my research has shown that his wife filed for divorce (for infidelity) in 1951.

    Not a chemist. Not a businessman. Didn’t live on Jetty Road but possibly very close on Partridge.

  41. B.Deveson, If as it seems “Ron Francis” was an alias, is it possible the initials R F were correct? If so, that could possibly be “Robert Fox” ? Interesting he was also a Chiropodist!

  42. Not, Morphett Vale but, Fulham!!

  43. B Deveson on January 20, 2014 at 12:45 am said:

    Misca! A very good catch indeed! That ball had been in the air for 65 years! Leslie Francis died in 1991 but he had a son, born 1939, so the son is possibly still alive and might be able to confirm if his father found the Rubaiyat. When I checked Leslie’s relatives I found he had Thomson relatives! Unfortunately these Thomsons do not seem to be related to Prosper’s lot, although I haven’t fully checked this out yet. Leslie’s Thomsons came from Mt Gambier.
    I note that Leslie is listed as being a tractor driver in the 1950 Electoral roll. More obfuscation I expect.
    Please contact me if you don’t have the Thomson/Leslie information and I will send it. Nick, please pass on my email address to Misca if he wants it. Thanks.
    Clive, yes, the chiropodist angle did get my attention, given SMs apparent toe problem.

  44. misca I don’t know why you are talking in riddles. It is no secret that the bus conductor JF Wytkin/s reported that he thought he may have found a copy of the Rubaiyat on his bus, but I have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it was a separate incident to the ‘businessman’ scenario. If he hadn’t handed it in to lost property as was reported, why wouldn’t he have just given it to the police and said he found it somewhere else? I doubt that the book would still have been held at lost property after eight months.

    Gerry Feltus’ account of the finding of the book by ‘Ronald Francis’ is fairly detailed; he doesn’t give a source for this information but seems to imply that it came from DS Leane.

  45. Found “Tom’s” potential interaction with the Frankston theatre…Am completely gobsmacked (no pun intended) with “Gobbie”. Haven’t found her interest in ballet. Will go back to check.

  46. Hillman on January 20, 2014 at 8:34 am said:

    “Minx” the person that found the rubaiyat was alive when Gerry wrote his book. You have the wrong person I’m afraid.

  47. B Deveson – The son died the same year he was born at 4 months. He had a daughter that was older; she’s included in the family notice about the son. I have been going crazy trying to find the connection to Thomson or Harkness and would really like to share info!

  48. B Deveson on January 21, 2014 at 10:50 am said:

    I note that Prof. Abbott lists the Pakies Restaurant guest book in the “Primary source material on the Tamam Shud case”.

    On the weekend of 14th-15th June 1947 Pakie’s Restaurant hosted a radio chess competition between Australia and Canada. There are a couple of pages of signatures of the people who attended, and two jumped off the page at me; F. Nosov and G. Nosov, who were probably Feodor Andreevich Nosov, and his wife Galina. Feodor was the NKGB agent “TEKhNIK” in the Venona traffic, who was the NKGB contact with Walter Clayton (“KLOD”) who featured prominently in the Petrov inquiry.
    I very much doubt that Feodor and his wife were there for the chess.

  49. B Deveson: it is more than possible that the Nosovs liked a bit of chess. There is a Russian International Master Andrej Nosov (b.1963). 🙂 But I’ll ask Derek Abbott if the Pakies guest book has any more significance than that, see what he says…

  50. Nicko, don’t worry the Professor, he’s a very busy fellow with his own peculiar agenda, just join a few dots your ownself. Isn’t that what code-breakers do?

  51. Pete: all the same, I’d rather find out what his particular dot is than just randomly conjure up a new one. 🙂

  52. Petebowes on January 21, 2014 at 8:31 pm said:

    Well, that’s what he does … why not get in first?

  53. Hillman on January 21, 2014 at 11:00 pm said:

    There is more than a couple of interesting names in the Pakies guest book. One of them being “Hendon”. Some interesting Hebrew quotes and names as well. Has any of you here ever found out who the man or woman was that was driving the military vehicle that struck Mrs Augusta Pakie Mcdougall ? It seems that Jestyn had some Mcdougall names in her family. Can anyone tell me if she was related to the Pakies Club owner ?

  54. It’s been there all along. The reference to “Pakie’s”. No discussion to be found. Why is it there? I’d like to know. The Ballet Russe (1937 – they performed at North Shore, chess players, left wing thinkers) is there a reason for this document to be included in the “primary resources”?

  55. The filter won’t allow me to post the pdf. It has been there all along.

    A few “Jessie”‘s, a couple of Solomon’s, the Ballet Russe, chess players from Russia, plenty of Russian names, lots of left-wing intellectuals….An interesting read, but why is it listed as a “primary resource”?

  56. B Deveson on January 22, 2014 at 11:49 am said:

    I noted that Florence Anniebell Paige writes her “t”s with a displaced bar. She was appointed to the Royal North Shore Hospital in 1912. In the 1943 Electoral roll for North Sydney she is listed as living at 7 Crows Nest Road, a masseuse. In 1930 she was at 69 Albert Avenue with Menina Blanche Paige-Ranken.
    Roger R Mothersole, “Roger the lodger, the sod”, off the MV Suffolk 25/5/1948 sounds like a delightfully Wodehousian character, and may be worth checking out. I also noted the resident artist, Eric Saunders. Plenty of colourful people listed, including Jean Devanny, a noted communist.

  57. Hillman – August Poole (Pakie) and her husband had a son named Robin. “McDougall”‘s, in general, are very busy beavers and, as such, are a little bit difficult to track. As such, I have not yet found a connection but it’s an interesting suggestion. I’m looking forward to DA’s response on this one.

  58. Hi Hillman. “Hendon” at the Pakies Club? Wonder if this was Helmut Hendon who was with Gwenneth Graham the night she died.

  59. Petebowes on January 23, 2014 at 8:50 am said:

    Go get ’em Clive

  60. Hi Pete, Just thinking that if Pakies Club was for the bohemian, left wing “darlings” it’s the type of place George Marshall would, probably, have been drawn to like a moth to a flame along with the likes of Jessie who found themselves in the company of a different world of thinking. A recruiting ground for possible spies with left wing tendencies? Wonder if a “Solomonson” visited as, apparently, someone who looked like the SM and called “Solomonson” was reportedly drinking in a Glenelg hotel on Tues 30-11-48.

  61. Hillman on January 23, 2014 at 11:21 am said:

    Yes. It certainly was. Signed Helmut Hendon. Same guy.

  62. There you go Clive, a possible series of connections between Nosov, Gwen Graham, Hendon, Solomonson, Clayton, Petrov, Venona, Marshall and SM.
    A web of intrigue, masterfully woven, and once you’re in, you’re stuck there.

  63. Hillman: where is this thing? Where do I burrow?

  64. It would be very interesting to know the names/dates of who was at the club on different nights. I have visions of George Marshall, Jessie, SM, Helmut & Gwen all sat at the same table. I don’t think Alf and Prosper would have felt at home.

  65. Hillman on January 24, 2014 at 1:53 pm said:

    From memory I think it was NAA. Pakies guest book.

  66. If George Marshall was at Pakies Club along with Helmut and Jessie, then things become very interesting and, is it at all possible that copies of the Rubbaiyat were passed around and contained a sort of “secret code” for members only?

  67. Petebowes on January 26, 2014 at 10:23 am said:

    written on the fly leaf Clive … kind of fits doesn’t it

  68. L(eslie) F(rancis) Wytkins, Partridge St, Glenelg, was, I presume the man who found the book-whereabouts he find the book is a mystery! You can understand why he didn’t want his name advertising, being a bus conductor. Wonder if he just dumped the book in the back of the nearest car in Jetty Road? Did bus conductors have private cars in 1948?

  69. Clive: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/36677396

    A bus conductor informed police last night that he believed he knew the whereabouts of a book, which, if it were the correct one, might provide a very important clue in the Somerton body mystery Detective – Sergeant R. L. Leane has been trying for several months to trace a copy of the “Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam” from which the dead man is believed to have cut a piece of paper bearing the words “Taman Shud” (meaning “The End”) and placed it in the pocket of his trousers. Last night Mr. L. F. Wytkins, bus conductor, of Partridge street, Glenelg, told police that several months ago he found a book answering the description of the one required by the police. He handed it in to the lost property office at the Tramways Trust. Mr. Wytkins said he was not sure when he found the book, but he believed it to be about the time the man’s body was found on the beach at Somerton. Although it is nearly eight months since the body was found, enquiries throughout the world have so far been unable to establish the man’s identity. An inquest recently failed to reveal the cause of death. Detective-Sergeant Leane believes that if he can find the book from which the clipping was taken, he might be able to trace from where the book came and possibly the person who owned it.

  70. Hi Nick, Can’t help wondering if the book was found on the same bus the “SM” took to St Leonards (Glenelg)? Perhaps the “SM” was distracted and didn’t realize he had left it on the bus, a bit of a coincidence that a bus conductor finds the same copy supposedly found later in a car?

  71. Hi Nick, So, on Friday 22 July 1949 Mr Wytkins, of Glenelg, tells the police he found a copy of the book the police were looking for. Then the next day, Saturday 23 July 1949 a “businessman”: also from Glenelg, hands in a copy of the book “found in November 1948” Something is very odd about this story.

  72. I agree. I assumed that one journalist got the information and wrote about it before Mr. Wytkin had the opportunity to explain his reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. If he found the book on a bus and didn’t turn it in to the tramway lost and found, he may have been afraid to lose his job. There are other reasons he may have decided to ask that his name be withheld. (In line, perhaps, with Jestyn’s reasons.) After that one article Nick posted, he was never named again. I always just assumed that he was the one who found the book but that he had asked to remain anonymous.

  73. Clive, the short newspaper article about the bus conductor “L. F. Wytkins” (which I think should be -s, i.e. _Wytkin_) finding the book says that he deposited it at the Metropolitan Tramways Trust, which seems to suggest that Wytkin found the book on a tram. But it doesn’t actually say that.

    I believe that the MTT also operated conventional buses in Adelaide (after converting from conventional trams to trolleybuses in the 1930s). So it’s likely that Wytkin worked for the MTT and/or it’s lost property office was a convenient place for him to lodge any lost property. Even something he had found, say, in a car he shared with his brother-in-law.

    I can understand that Wytkin didn’t want to be identified at the time and why the police changed his name and occupation in later accounts. But if it turns out that the _Rubaiyat_ really was found on a bus by Wytkin, that would be very interesting — and a bit of a hole in the credibility of the conventional story about SM and the police investigation.

  74. Clive – I’ve wondered the same thing about it being the bus that SM took to Glenelg!

  75. Edited extract from Tamam Shud: The Somerton Man Mystery by Kerry Greenwood, published by NewSouth Books on December 1, 2012…
    SMH November 28, 2012 “Riddle on the Sands”:

    “The police began a vigorous rummage through public libraries and bookshops hoping to find the actual book from which the page was torn. Amazingly, on July 22, a Mr Ronald Francis recalled seeing a copy of The Rubaiyat in the glovebox of his brother-in-law’s Hillman Minx. When Mr Francis called to inquire, his brother-in-law told him he had discovered the book lying in the back of his unlocked car. On November 30, the car had been parked in Moseley Street, the street above Somerton Beach.
    The next day, Mr Francis took the book to the police. The torn-out page matched the book and, what’s more, the book contained a code and a telephone number written in pencil. The case had just become even more complicated.”

    I remembered reading about another story of how the book was found and that it involved a brother-in-law and a glove compartment in a car. I went looking and this is what I found. I’m relieved that I wasn’t imagining it but this is not the original article I remember reading. In fact, I think that the original article I read was on Trove. Nonetheless, here is yet another version. I particularly like the “Minx” detail.

    ; )

  76. Hi Misca/Furphy-See http://www.busaustralia.com for info on Adelaide buses/routes and “The Mail (Adelaide” 06-11-48 about lack of trams and use of buses. I think the scenario with Wytkin and the book, is that he took it home to read, instead of taking it to the lost property office. Once he read that the police were looking for a copy, with a torn page, he realized he had the copy. He went to the police explained he might lose his job, the police were only too pleased to concoct a story about a “businessman” and the car, as they were only too happy to have something turn up to examine-Result? both Wytkin and Police were happy. But, what if the “SM” had actually given Wytkin the book as he got off the bus, as he had no further use for it?

  77. Hi Folks, Sorry, but Gerry Feltus in his book has the bus conductor as Arthur Holderness! I understand that Arthur was not questioned about that particular journey for a few months after the 30 Nov 1948. This still leaves Mr Wytkin and the book and where he found the book, back to square one? I suppose the scenario may well have been that Mr Wytkin “borrowed” the book from the lost property office and forgot to return it?

  78. Furphy on February 4, 2014 at 2:35 pm said:

    Clive, yes, Holdernesse sold SM the ticket. That doesn’t rule out Wytkin finding the book in his car.

    Unless someone who has seen the police files comes forward and says that Wytkin found the Rubaiyat in a bus, I’m inclined to think that the book turned up in Wytkin’s car in Glenelg. It’s so unlikely it almost has to be true!

    One thing in favour of the car story: unlocked cars were common, if not the rule in Australia until the late 1950s at least.

  79. Furphy – Agreed. It doesn’t rule out Wytkin finding the book…But why in his car? Why would someone (anyone) toss a book into a car? It sounds so obviously “made up” to me! If not “made up” then a message sent from a “larger” organization. The Mafia, a spy ring…etc… Who goes around tossing books into cars?

  80. Misca, someone who wanted to get rid of it in a hurry. Which could be (1) SM, thinking that he was being about to be collared with it, or (2) someone implicated in his death, also thinking they were about to be seen carrying it.

  81. The dude on February 6, 2014 at 1:04 pm said:

    Cmon!! A spy decides to dispose of a book with crucial information, so crucial it is written in secret code. How does this “spy” dispose of this crucial piece of evidence? burnt it to ashes…..throw it in the ocean…….into a waste disposal bin Nooo I think ill leave it full intact and bring some attention on myself and the book by putting it into a random persons car.. If he was a spy it may have been Maxwell Smart or Mr Bean.
    Nup I dont buy it nor do I that his killer if there was one would be equally as incompetent.
    He must have been in that car and had to get out in a hurry. Maybe he was trying to steal the car but got spooked.

  82. Furphy on February 7, 2014 at 2:48 am said:

    The dude: I’m reminded of the Woody Allen movie _Radio_Days_, where burglars are disturbed in the act and run off without their booty form previous jobs, leaving the homeowner better off and with no incentive to report the crime 😉

    Anyway, I wouldn’t rule out a spy or spies dumping the _Rubaiyat_ just yet. That is, I should have emphasised “HURRY”. As in pressure to act, induced by being caught by cops, counterintelligence, other illegals, with something significant in one’s hand.

    And, while I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who dumped the book, the proof is in the pudding. The _Rubaiyat_ became, if not invisible, then at least inconsequential, for how many months after it was surreptitiously bunged on the back seat of the Hillman? A long, long time anyway for someone who was trying to buy time by dumping the _Rubaiyat_.

    The fact that many cars were left unlocked in Adelaide in 1948 is significant. As is the suggestion that Wytkin shared the car. I’ll put it this way: had I had found the book under those circumstances, my mind wouldn’t have jumped to car thieves, other crims or spies. I would probably have assumed that it belonged to my brother-in-law, or someone connected to him. Once that idea was pinged — let’s say days or weeks later — I would most likely have assumed that the book’s owner had mistaken my car for his or her car. Given the passing of time, I don’t know that I would have connected it to a corpse found nearby. Until the _Rubaiyat_ was named in the press as significant to that case.

  83. Pete – I’ll take either label. Thomas Lawrence Keane’s father seems to have married as a “KEAN” and died as a “KEANE”. Not so surprising to me in the many records I’ve perused. Also, the “E” could have rubbed off. I would take both. No need to pick.

    Hillman – Where did you go?

    Smerdon – Idem.

  84. “Beach Mystery Probe” – Barrier Miner – Broken Hill – Friday 11 February, 1949

    Local police believe it is pos-
    sible that the man was employed
    in the Broken Hill district and are
    inquiring at dry-cleaning estab-
    lishments.
    Among the few clues are
    cleaners’ marks on a pair of trou-
    sers that may have belonged to
    the dead man.
    The names “Kean” and “T.
    Keane” have also been discovered
    on a singlet and necktie.

    Pete – SM was quite tall. In this, and many other articles, he is listed as being 5 ‘- 11″.

  85. The dude – Thanks for expressing my sentiments so succinctly. Who on earth disposes their “secret code” into a car? Secret agent guy is being pursued and tosses his book with code into the car of an unknown and completely unrelated person. James Bond music now…Da da da da da dun da…

    If he wasn’t a spy, then the person that found the book would most likely know how it got there.

    I’ve read that Det. Leane came into the investigation a bit late and in fact, did not interview the person who found the book but read about it in the police files. I have no idea if Gerry F ever talked to the person who found the book but I have seen/read nothing to indicated that he did.

  86. dude, matey: how about the guy who killed him only needed the book for the message on the last page which he ripped out and rolled up and stuffed into his victim’s smallest pocket – the book might have gone through plenty of owners – look at all the inscriptions – and he tossed it, not on the street, somebody might go oi! so into an open car window, then
    and he’s gone – 65 years later and where are we?

  87. The dude on February 7, 2014 at 11:33 am said:

    C’mon Pete you telling me you havent been in the back of a car enjoying a spliff and wandered of for some munchies and leaving your wallet or surf wax behind. I once left a weeks shopping in a cafe in Amsterdam after some milk and cookies.
    He was in that car dude but he forgot the book or had to leave in a hurry. He was gonna nick it!!

  88. The dude – I find the car-theft-ring angle interesting…

    …But…

    Why would a guy who was stealing a car bring a book along with him? And why would he tear a piece of it off and stuff it into his fob pocket?

  89. dude, I’m with you there but it’s not complicated enough the way you want to do it, there’s all these things we know, hundreds of facts about people and codes, legs, toes, digitalin, omar, phone number, the gardens, the dead poet, his dead girlfriend …. mate, this is jigsaw puzzle BIGTIME! .. I’m into it.

  90. The dude on February 8, 2014 at 4:52 am said:

    In those days getting caught for car theft meant serious jail time. Remember this is 1949. I believe SM was a middle man for a more high level underworld type. Read the Daphne Page v P Thomson details on trove. Prosper claims the deal went bad in Melbourne because a guy paid him with a dud cheque.. When Daphne says “report him to the police” Prospers response is “this is not the type man you report to the police”
    This is on the court record. Who was this mysterious business partner of Prosper who he was so intimidated by that mystery guy duds PT out of a fortune over a dodgy car deal but PT is to scared to go to the cops. Remember this is in the same year SM turns up dead up the road from PTs house and with PTs phone number in the book he was carrying……..BUT why the
    rolled up paper??? A personal theory is that SM was a middle man him and PT had never met prior to his trip to Adelaide. He doesn’t want to get caught in a sting so the boss. Sets up the deal. Gives the torn out piece to PT and the book to SM along with the phone number. He tells PT that SM will identify himself by being in possession of the book and the matching piece identifies both men when they meet up that they are legit and working for the boss…… Yep its a theory but to me more likely than the long bows that get pulled on this one.

  91. The dude: the problem with Prosper’s “menacing partner” is the apparent lack of follow up: as he wasn’t (as far as we know) named in court or the press. Then as now, court proceedings are privileged: journalists cannot cannot be prevented from reporting evidence or sued over statements made by witnesses, unless the court specifically instructs them otherwise.

    Isn’t it more likely that Prosper made a crude attempt at applying the frighteners to Daphne with a fictitious bogeyman? I suppose another explanation could be that Prosper named the partner to the police, who didn’t want him alerted. Or the partner was powerful enough to intimidate the cops and didn’t get his hands dirty.

    Either way we are drifting deep into speculation and far from the little that we actually _know_ about the corpse on the beach and the circumstances of his death.

  92. thedude747 on February 14, 2014 at 6:06 am said:

    I agree Furph it is deep speculation BUT isn’t the entire spy theory just as speculative if not more?? What do we have to prove he was a spy? the “code” do we know for sure 1. that it was a code and 2. if he even wrote it.
    Yes Ive considered that the “menacing partner” was fictitious and designed to scare poor old Daph BUT his story about buying one car and going to Melbourne to sell another matches the exact MO of the car theft rings operating at the time and as discussed previously.
    My contention is that this theory has just as much if not more going for it AND that we’ve spent 65 years looking at the nurse and turned up squat when there was one particularly dodgy character who has flown under the radar all this time and who to my mind based on much of his back ground deserves a bit more attention.. Add the tool kit, the “menacing partner” and the fact that Georgie was looking to pay cash for a new home not long after where earlier in the year he was hawking himself out as a cut rate unlicenced cab driver.

  93. Celestine on February 14, 2014 at 8:14 pm said:

    George was a criminal: proven fact. Jessie was untruthful about Somerton Man: Feltus. One of the numbers was for a bank: proven fact. Harkness and Thomson went from being impoverished to financially independent: proven fact. Helmut Hendon was a gold smuggler: get the drift?

  94. thedude747 – It’s quite possible that the phone number related to Prosper and not to Jestyn…It was Prosper (er…George) that had been posting in the newspapers – not Jestyn. Jestyn’s issues and reasons for remaining anonymous could be completely separate from the SM case. Family’s have secrets. A mysterious dead guy showing up on a beach that might not have anything to do with you when you have other secrets to hide – might not be so good. Jestyn was hiding something. Maybe more than one thing; but it might not have had anything to do with SM.

    I’m not convinced of this but, it’s possible.

  95. Does anyone here remember discussions on the Smithsonian site about Joy Denbigh-Russell and her (possible) relationship with Jessica/Jo? If so, what was the relationship between the two? How did Denbigh-Russell enter the discussion?

  96. Joy knew Jestyn

  97. The dude on February 16, 2014 at 1:08 am said:

    Here, here Misca, thats exacty what people continue to mis because there so invested in the romantic idea of international intrigue and a love that couldn’t be.

  98. Smerdon – Joy knew many people. It would not be surprising if she knew Jestyn as well. I gathered from the Smithsonian site that they might have known each other but I was hoping someone would remember from the comments how they might have been more succinctly connected…

  99. Joy’s step-sister went to England and lived at Joy’s ex- husband’s address for more than twenty years before she died. Strange, but true.

    There are a couple of interesting “inter-connectivity” maps that can be created between Joy and Pakie’s.

  100. The dude: for me, the the strength of the “SM was a spy” theory _and_ the weakness of the “SM was a crook” theory both lie in two things.

    (1) He remains unknown to the street-level law-enforcement agencies of Australia, the rest of the English-speaking world and Interpol. What are the chances of a career criminal in his mid-40s pulling that off?

    (2) The link to Prosper seems to be indirect and through Jessie, i.e. the evidence is growing that Robin Thomson was SM’s biological son.

    Apart from the Soviet spy theories, there are other plausible ones.

    There is the Displaced Person” hypothesis, but DPs (official ones) left extensive paper trails.

    Or maybe he was a fugitive Nazi/fascist. If he was a war criminal of some description, someone would have been on the case and identified him at some point in the last 65 years.

    Perhaps SM fell between two or more of the above camps , such as an Axis official protected and relocated by the Western Allies (for services rendered). Or he was an Israeli agent, looking for Nazis or supplies of second-hand weapons/munitions. And so on.

    My favourite is still a Soviet/-affiliated illegal agent, at odds of let’s see, 3½ to 1?

  101. Joy’s second husband died almost exactly 20 years before her sister so perhaps he left property to her when he died.

    I believe that the supposed connection between Joy and Jessie was made because of the spy allegations against Joy which were found to be nothing more than malicious gossip. If they were acquainted there was only a small window of opportunity when Joy was in Australia in 1939/40. There was a 15 year age difference between them and I don’t think that Jessie would have been in the same league socially.

  102. Smerdon on February 16, 2014 at 6:41 pm said:

    Police are after you Debra

  103. Smerdon: *sigh*

  104. Furphy, wouldn’t an illegal agent be under tight control ? Moscow would recall him and debrief him first. Leaving bodies on the beach is messy. I am betting he is American. We are the ones that said no A-bomb secrets for England and Australia until we sort out this spy problem.

  105. at least old sherds is a shorter poster that rick a robb – howareya nick?
    just between you and me, on the quiet … the book is almost down mate, and everything got sucked in – who do you know who does movies?

  106. Xplor, yes, the spy trade reminds me of the old joke about the Lone Ranger, saying “the Indians have got us surrounded” and Tonto saying “what do you mean we?” No real friends among intelligence agencies. Or within them.

    There were likely CIA illegals in Australia in 1948. MI6 almost certainly had a presence in Adelaide. But I doubt that relations between the Yanks and Australian military intelligence (DMI) or the federal police (CIS) were ever quite _that_ bad. Or between the CIA and MI6.

    I agree that SM’s death doesn’t fit quite fit the modus operandi of the Soviets (either GRU, which seems to have run the illegals in Australia in the ’40s, or MGB as precursor to the KGB). Unless SM had seriously gone off the reservation. Then again,the Soviets didn’t always catch and kill their own?

    In some ways Jessie fits the profile of a DMI/CIS auxiliary (“sparrow”), recruited in Sydney to hang around left-wing/bohemian/ex-pat haunts and keep an ear to the ground. Perhaps the sparrow fell into her own trap. Either way, we will probably never know the true nature of the relationship between her and SM.

    So, at the moment, my hunch is that the Jessie did not realise — until it was too late — who SM really was. Needing a fresh start, she hastily hooked up with Prosper. If she was tracked down by SM, Jessie likely felt threatened for more reason than one. Perhaps she played nice, invited him to come and see his lad while Prosper was out — and served up a pasty juiced with digitalis.

  107. Furph .. I was with you all the way to the end there, but they tested the pasty .. no trace of D. I’m betting it went into his beer or he had to take it … because ….

  108. Scratch the C. I .A. In 1948 they were so messed up they were not allowed to see the Venona messages from Arlington Hall.
    J. Edgar Hoover was fighting to keep counter intelligence in the F.B.I. The training of American Agents was so poor that the English set up a secret school in Canada (camp x).

  109. Hi Furphy, Perhaps the “SM” was playing two sides off each other, he was caught out, either knowing to him or, not knowing. Jessie invited him to visit her and his(?) son as a way of finalising his career. Wonder if he had a beer at her home and, Jessie, being a nurse and knowing how much dose would kill him, calmly put it into his drink. (I can’t imagine Jessie & the “SM” walking down the street to Hotel Broadway in case the neighbours later talked to Prosper). Only problem with this scenario is-who took him to the beach?

  110. Following onto to the “SM”s death, if he was seen barely alive between 7 & 8.00pm-lying against the seawall-who was the man being “helped” down the beach later that evening? Both Olive and her boyfriend, plus John Lyons and his wife saw a man’s body in the same position near to the steps but, all four of them did not look at his face.

  111. Clive: good points. Even if there were, by coincidence, two different men lying in that spot at different times, I can’t see Jessie ushering SM onto the beach (baby Robin under arm). Was it Prosper and a crony, or a clean up crew from one or more spy/police agencies?

  112. Nick P (or anyone who knows about such things): could the discrepancy between body’s position and its lividity have been caused by the body being merely moved, some time after death towards the wall and propped up?

    In the only photo I can find of the scene as it must have been on November 30, 1948 (i.e. the one with a hand-drawn “X” marking the spot, two flights of steps and before the slope and wall were replaced with rubble), it appears that the sand has a very slight slope, of only a few degrees, down towards the wall — and therefore the body’s head.

    If the whole body, including the head, was lying on the sand, could such a minor inclination have caused lividity of the upper body? And could other factors have contributed to the lividity, such as (for argument’s sake) SM’s knees being arched at the time of death?

  113. What I’m also suggesting is this: the theories that: (1) the man on the beach in the early evening of November 30 was a doppelganger, or (2) later that evening SM left the beach/was taken away and (was) returned there later that night, after dying elsewhere, seem to fly in the face of logic.

    Both (1) and (2) are extremely high-risk strategies, with little gain for the people involved. For instance, one passer-by with a half-decent memory would have sunk both (1) and (2) Unless the body was arranged for arcane reasons, such as by a psychopath and/or to send some other kind of specific “message” (e.g. the Masonic ritual theory).

    I’m inclined to wield Ockham’s razor and suggest that SM was poisoned elsewhere (and probably robbed and cleaned-up) on the afternoon of November 30, before he went to the beach, that he died there and his body remained until the following day.

  114. The discrepancy between the lividity and SM’s final posture may be explainable by (say), a well-intentioned passer-by, moving the body — perhaps in a vain attempt to revive SM.

  115. pete on March 2, 2014 at 5:10 am said:

    Plenty of comment about how he was found, not much about how he got there … the man seen carrying a man was later on in the evening, with the pub just up the road maybe that’s him explained.
    Digitalis takes a while to work, there might be gradual stupefaction, and an inability to shout, talk. Somebody settled him there to die.
    Lyons the witness saw him lying with his head on the sea wall, and he moved his arm.
    Olive saw him later, but only from the waist down. What if when he moved his arm, a little later he moved himself, and settled his head on the sand. He was strong enough. Maybe the stones hurt the back of his head.
    What if the man Olive saw looking down on the body, was waiting for her to leave to he could slip down and put SM’s head back on the wall, what if he stuck a lit smoke into his mouth to make him look like all was ok. These folks were good on detail.

  116. Furphy on March 3, 2014 at 6:45 am said:

    Pete:

    You make good points when you say the killer/s “were good on detail.” I would say professional. Also about how a fatal does of digitalis “takes a while to work, there might be gradual stupefaction, and an inability to shout, talk. takes a while to work”.

    We part company when you say “somebody settled him there to die”. It’s possible although that suggests an unprofessional or spur of the moment murder by an disorganised (or irrational) amateur rather than a hit by a gangster/spy/bent copper etc. A professional killer does not hang around someone they knew has been fatally poisoned. Not for long. An it’s even better for the killer if the victim will wander off to die by themselves. Returning to the scene is something that some killers do; but not professionals. Returning a dying victim to a spot from which he had been taken is a high cost, low gain tactic. And also smacks of amateurs.

    So why isn’t it likely that SM:
    (1) walked a short distance to the beach after he was given or deliberately took a dose of (a slow acting) poison?
    (2) was on the beach continually from early evening until he died and his corpse was found the following morning?
    (3) had no connection whatsoever to the vague report of a man “carrying” another man?
    (4) was lying on the sand, with his feet slightly higher than his head, when lividity set in and his body was moved and propped up after death by a passer-by?

  117. John sanders on June 20, 2016 at 3:10 pm said:

    Bit of a time gap here but guess I can enter the fray. I guess you all know that John Alexander Scott Coutts (Willie) was also into the Pakies scene before he left for the big Apple in 45. This is Mr. Fetish & Bizarre and best buddies with FBN(I) cross dressing buddies in the states. Left his Mrs. In oz, jumped on a boat and never came back, ended up carking in Blighty after destroying all his records and by the way he was born in Singapore. Wasn’t it suggested that SM might have been into the high heels and bondage (light cord in his kit) big calves & scrunched up toes. Wonder if he knew Jock Armstrong Byron. Oh one other thing if SM had tachycardia it may well be that he died suddenly from having missed out on his foxglove medication and not Vicki verca capice.

  118. John sanders on June 21, 2016 at 12:14 am said:

    A couple of comments on Ray Whitrod arguably our greatest detective and spymaster. He just happened to be right there on the job at SAPOL when all this Tamam Shud thing went down and was probably working major crime. In 49 sometime he went over to ASIO taking his RAAF cipher skills with him and was later the main man on the Soviet desk. Subsequently he became first commissioner of COMPOL thence PNGPOL and finally to QLDPOL where he was brought to heel by his anti corruption and pro police women initiatives. My query is why haven’t we heard anything from him re SM either with regard to his thoughts on the initial investigation or subsequently relating to possible espionage. He was possibly the top detective in Adelaide at the time experience wise in a very small plainclothes office. It does seem strange to me and someone out there might have some thoughts. Ray is unfortunately no longer with us and having also been an honest cop does not come up on SAPOL’s blast from the past list of notables in that force. Weird ain’t it.

  119. I guess that the original beach photo of the crime? scene doesn’t get a great deal of attention these days but just lately Milongal & myself have had somethings to say about it somewhere over there, namely about the so called X spot and condition of the beach stairs. However I think we also mentioned the little British looking soft top parked on the roadway twixt the two mansion houses, and somewhat in jest I mentioned that SM could have placed old ‘Omar’s’ book in the car there and not in Jetty Street as we all ( except Nick) take for granted. As we know nothing about that particular little jalopy, might I suggest that it could have been borrowed by our man, seeing it unlocked and all earlier on, perhaps just after buying his last meal at Wenzell’s cake shop. He hot wires it with one of ‘The Dude’s’ quicky ignition key override devices and heads off to the beach to enjoy his pastie, he being an experienced car thief afterall. After enjoying his meal, then cleverly using the book’s last page to clean up he removes the TS slip, pockets it for later closer analysis and puts the old ’59 translation in the glovebox. Now anything could have gone down after that but my personal favourite would go something close to what occurred to ‘Andy’, who on being caught with said jumbuck, ups and sprang into the billabong and so drowned. In this case the troopers might well indeed have been the brother-in-law and or the equally elusive Mr. Francis Esq. When our SM attempts a getaway by going down the broken stairs or over the embankment, he sprawls arse over breaking the fall with his neck at ‘X marks the spot and that’s where he remained, dead or mighty close to it. The so called lividity marks might well have been bruises and no matter, upon seeing what had occurred the other attendees taking the cue, leave the scene somehat handily and undetected, returning to claim the vehicle only after the excitement dies down on 1/12/48. Why go through the nonsense about handing the book over two months later? Well why not, the heat’s off and of course the boys want to find out who the fellow is just like the rest of us. Don’t worry too much about the lack of ID, bumpers &c as those items can be explained away in any number of ways.

  120. milongal on February 6, 2017 at 10:38 pm said:

    I don’t like Wenzell for the pasty. Firstly, Wenzell’s is located near Brighton Rd. SM would have had to walk inland from the bus stop at Adelphi Tce (or get off the bus earlier, in which case we’re still adding to his km’s that day – which doesn’t fit the shiny shoes). Secondly, Wenzel’s seems to advertise (even in 1950, 1952) as a “Cake Shop” – which to me is different to a bakery.
    That said, I’m sure there were a lot of bakeries around (there was one on Anzac Hwy, I think), which if it’s where the Orange Spot bakery is today, it’s right across the road from Adelphi St….

  121. Macdougall on February 7, 2017 at 10:07 am said:

    Cold pasties are great with sauce

  122. I didn’t mean Wenzels pur se, but merely someplace where a man could get himself a half decent Cornish pastie in the near vicinity to Somerton Beach. For the benefit of those unaware, it was the place where the ‘Beaumont Kids’ were known to have purchased their pie, pastie and cakes before mysteriously disappearing on Australia Day 1966.

  123. milongal on February 7, 2017 at 9:20 pm said:

    I didn’t realise that was where the Beaumont’s paid their pound…..I sort of always assumed they’d have gone somewhere closer the beach.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post navigation