To my eyes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle left two quite distinct legacies. The first, of course, was Sherlock Holmes, his searingly-flawed-but-unstoppably-insightful detective, whose long shadow still hangs over the entire detective fiction genre, 130+ years after A Study in Scarlet.
Yet the second was Conan Doyle’s literary conceit that one can combine wide-ranging observation with pure deduction (as opposed to merely providing a convincing scenario) so powerfully that it can completely reconstruct precisely what happened in cases of murder – which (with all legal caveats for accuracy) would need to be “beyond reasonable doubt”.
The first is fair enough, but the second… has a few issues, let’s say.
“Whatever Remains…”
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” said Holmes in The Sign of Four, H&W’s second novel-sized outing. (Conan Doyle reprised the quote in the short stories The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet and The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier). Arguably one of the most famous Sherlock Holmes lines, this appeals not only to Holmes’ ultimate power of deduction, but also to his implicit omniscience.
Inevitably, this is precisely what the Rational Wiki’s Holmesian Fallacy web page skewers so gleefully, which itself is no more than a nice summary of numerous articles all arguing the same basic thing: that because Holmes could not possibly have conceived all the possible explanations that fitted a given case’s facts and observations, he could not have eliminated all the impossible ones.
Deduction by elimination is OK for maths problems (which are constrained by the walls of their strong logical structure), but it’s far from satisfactory for murder. My best understanding is that proof of murder is now far more often to do with demonstrating a direct forensic connection, i.e. proving a direct evidential connection between a victim’s death and the accused. Once this link is made, proving the precise details is arguably less important: that such a link has been made at all is normally enough to tell the lion’s share of a story beyond reasonable doubt.
All of which would be no more than a legalistic literary footnote for me, were it not the case that in (I would estimate) the majority of unsolved cipher theories, this kind of specious argument is wheeled out in support of the theorist’s headline claim.
Can we ever eliminate all the other possibilities in our search for the historical truth, thus rendering our preferred account the last Holmesian man standing? The answer is, of course, no: but in many ways, even attempting to do this is a misunderstanding of what historical research is all about.
Instead, once we have eliminated those (very few) hypotheses that we can prove to be genuinely impossible with the resources available to us, we then have to shift our focus onto constructing the best positive account we can. And we must accept that this will almost never be without competitors.
“The Curious Incident”
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”According to Holmes, “I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others….Obviously the midnight visitor was someone whom the dog knew well. It was Straker who removed Silver Blaze from his stall and led him out on to the moor.”
The “curious [non-]incident” (i.e. one that really should have happened but failed to occur) is, according to this legal blog, the piece of Holmesian reasoning most often cited in court. [e.g. “Appellate Court of Connecticut cited in its recent opinion in State v. Rosado, 2012 WL 1003763 (Conn.App. 2012), to answer a hearsay question.”]
In lots of ways, noticing the absence of something is a trick that requires not only keen observation, but also a curiously un-Holmesian empathy for the rhythms, cycles, and sequences of human life. There are forensic voids (e.g. where a removed body covered a blood spatter pattern, as just about any viewer of CSI would know), but behavioural voids? Not so easy.
The Somerton Man
All of which brings me round to Australia’s curious incident of the Somerton Man. What would Sherlock Holmes have made of a death scene riddled with so many voids, so many geese that failed to cackle, so many dingoes that didn’t howl?
Naturally, the biggest absence is the lack of any identity, followed by a lack of a definitive cause of death (though the coroner put it that the death was not natural [Feltus, Ch.10]), along with a lack of any preceding timeline for the man. Beyond these ‘macro-absences’, however, there are numerous micro-absences, all of which would surely have been grist to Holmes’ mental mill:
* Overcoat but no hat
* Tickets (one used, one unused) but no money
* No wallet
* No ration card
* Absence of dirt on his shoes
* Absence of vomit on his clothes or on the beach (despite blood in his stomach)
A particular suitcase (that had been left at Adelaide Railway Station on the morning before the man’s death) then appeared as potential evidence. Once it had been strongly linked with the dead man (thanks to cotton thread), it offered an additional set of absences to puzzle over:
* No shoes (apart from the pair he was wearing)
* He had five ties but no socks (apart from the pair he was wearing)
* Air mail blank letters and six pencils but no inkpen or ink, and no received letters
* Identifying marks (“Kean”, “Keane”, “T Keane”) that led the police investigation nowhere
* Places where Labels attached to a shirt and to the suitcase itself (?) had been removed
* No medicine of any sort (yet the dead man had a significantly enlarged spleen, so one might expect him to have been to a doctor or hospital not long before)
I’ve previously blogged about the “T Keane” marks, arguing that these might well have been donated to charity following the death of local man Tom Keane in January 1947: and separately that the slippers (which were the wrong size for the dead man’s feet) and dressing gown may have been given to him by the local Mission to Seamen (Mrs John Morison was probably the Mission’s hospital visitor). But this is a thread that is hard to sustain further.
I have also blogged about the Somerton Man’s lack of socks, something which vexed Somerton Man blogger Pete Bowes several years back in a (now long-removed) series of posts. I once tried to link these with the rifle stock mysteriously left by young Fred Pruszinski on the beach in a suitcase with lots of socks. Derek Abbott in particular has long been fascinated by what story the absence of socks may be trying to tell us, so perhaps there are more pipes to be smoked before this is resolved.
No Vomit, Sherlock
If this was a setup for a Conan Doyle short story, Sherlock Holmes would surely have pointed out that because the lividity on the dead man’s neck was inconsistent with his position laid on the beach (regardless of alternative explanations Derek Abbott might construct) and there was no vomit at the scene, he most certainly did not die there. And while the absence of a wallet would normally line up with a robbery, the body’s was clearly not so much dumped on the beach as posed, cigarette carefully put in place.
All of which Holmes would no doubt class as wholly inconsistent with any suggestion that the person or persons who did that was/were random muggers. Rather, this was a person who died elsewhere (and who Holmes would perhaps speculate had been laid out horizontally on a small bed post mortem, with his head lolling backwards over the edge), and whose wallet and money (and indeed hat, it would seem) were all removed before being carried to the beach [Gerry Feltus’ “Final Twist” has an eye-witness to a man being carried onto the beach, Ch. 14].
Holmes’ next waypost would be the absence of dirt on the man’s shiny brown shoes: having left his shoe polish in his suitcase, he would surely have been unable to shine his shoes in the time between the morning and his death in the night. And so I think Holmes would triumphantly complete the story told by the lack of vomit: that in his convulsions prior to death, the dead man’s vomit had surely fallen on his hat and shoes, and that someone else – dare I say a woman, Watson? – had cleaned the shoes prior to the man’s being carried off to the beach for his final mise en scène. And though he had eaten a couple of hours before his death, there was no trace of his eating out (another behavioural void to account for): he must therefore have spent some time that evening in a house with a man and a woman, eating with one or both of them.
So: they must have known him, or else they would not have cleaned him up in the way they did: yet they must not have wanted to be linked to his death, for they attempted (unsuccessfully, it has to be said) to stage a mysterious-looking death scene for him, one that would have had no physical connection to them (a pursuit which they were more successful in).
Did those people place the “Tamam Shud” scrap of paper in his fob pocket, as part of their dramatica staging? Holmes would surely think not: whatever its relation to the Rubaiyat allegedly found in the car around that time was, that was surely a separate story entirely, one quite unknown to them. And the car would form the centrepiece of an entirely separate chapter to Conan Doyle’s short story, one perhaps enough to tempt him to draw it out into a novella-sized accoun.
“The Case of the Missing Socks”
Finally, what of the missing socks? Sherlock Holmes would, I think, have first pointed out a sock-related mystery not previously noted elswehere: that even though the dead man’s suitcase had two pairs of Jockey underpants (one clean, one used) it contained not only no socks but no dirty socks either. In what circumstances would a man have dirty underwear but no dirty socks?
Hence once you have followed all the preceding Holmesian logic through, the three pipe problem that remains is this: why would someone walk around Glenelg with a pair of dirty socks, and not leave them in their suitcase back in Adelaide? Or, rather, why would someone travel with three pairs of underwear but only a single pair of socks?
For Holmes, the idea that the dead man would have carried anything around in smelly socks would be nonsensical. So I think the only conclusion the great fictional detective could have come to – having eliminated all he considered impossible – was that the dead man had arrived in Adelaide with something wrapped up in his spare pairs of socks in his suitcase – i.e. that he had brought spare socks with him, but that he was temporarily using them for a different purpose. He had therefore been able to change his underwear that morning but not his socks (because they were being used): moreover, Holmes would have said while tapping his pipe ash out, because the man was expecting to change into his spare socks later, he was without any doubt expecting to deliver what was wrapped up those socks to its destination during that day, and in doing so retrieve his socks.
But Holmes, Watson would ask, what was he carrying in those socks? Rolls of money, perhaps?
At this, Holmes would shake his head: my dear Watson, he would reply, this was not a man of money – his suitcase contents tell stories of ordinary life, of difficult times. He could not have been carrying anything bulky, or people would have noticed: it must have therefore been something valuable on the black market yet carryable beneath an overcoat on a train, bus or tram – and if so, why wrap it in socks for any reason apart from disguising its iconic shape? Hence, having eliminating all the impossible – as I so often do – the only object it can have possibly been was… a rifle fore-end.
My goodness, Holmes, Watson would reply, I do believe you have astounded me yet again. Derek Abbott was right: I shall have to call this The Case of the Missing Socks when I write it up in years to come. And… what of Fred Pruszinski?
What of him indeed, Watson…
“Whatever Remains…” (revisited)
From my perspective, I can see how Holmesian reasoning can almost be made to work: and I would argue that in the otherwise baffling case of the Somerton Man, the kind of short story reasoning I lay out above is just about as connected a positive account as can be genuinely fitted to the evidence. Had the Somerton Man brought something into Adelaide wrapped in his spare socks, expecting to deliver it during the day? It’s a good yarn, for sure, one that could easily be shoehorned into the Holmes and Watson canon. And, moreover, The Case of the Missing Socks does justice to pretty much every aspect of the case, both found and absent.
And yet, a small amount of prodding around the edges would surely display its many cracks and holes: it all remains no more than a story. We lack evidence: and ultimately it is evidence that persuades, evidence that proves, evidence that convicts. Reasoning from that which isn’t there and from that which did not occur all the way to that which did happen is a perilous argumentative tight-rope, a place surely only well-paid QCs and conspiracy theorists would feel comfortable balancing on.
As for me, I’m only comfortable writing this all up under cover of a Sherlock Holmes-themes blog post: but right now, perhaps building on a long series of absences to assemble this kind of novelistic take is as good as we can get. :-/
What will remain if we apply “deduction by elimination” to Voynich theories?
Farmerjohn: depends on who’s doing the deducting and eliminating, I’m sure.
There is one obvious parallel between Voynich studies and the problems wondefully described in Nick’s post. Evidence is scarce, and the clues we do have create more questions than answers. One quickly rises high above any solid foundations on unsubstantiated constructs.
A very interesting post (not least because I rather like Holmes). One of the problems in this space (and perhaps in any amateur research/investigation scenario) is that we have a tendancy to hone in on our view, and justify our opinions with ‘…all else is impossible’ and then cite Holmes. Indeed, once someone exposes a flaw in our theory, we find some justification to work around it (need I bring up the arguments over Fed which seem to be on the verge of resurfacing).
I have always liked the Pruzinski storyline – because it plausibly brings together multiple local incidents (which could, of course, be merely coincidental), but neatly ties up more loose ends than most other theories. And yet, for it to work we still need to assess (and explain away) some other details. The pocket-contents have long bothered me (as you would know), because what is pesent is just as awkward to explain as what isn’t. It would be unlikely that the people he dined with would take his wallet deliberately (because it ties them to him), unless they deliberately wanted to hide his identity – but that would seem a redundant move in the Pruzinski tale, wouldn’t it? Of course, it’s possible that our stablehands opportunistically took the wallet (and their absence in the narrative after the original find of the body has always seemed a massive oversight at best). Of course, the presence of the unused ticket then seems odd – because while a used bus ticket has little value, an unused train ticket seems something you’d try to keep some care of (unless you were certain you wouldn’t use it again – but wouldn’t you try for a refund in that case?). There’s also the lack of cash. While the absence of a wallet accounts for the lack of cash to some degree, what about coinage? If the horsie people took the wallet, did they also rifle around for all the coin (and did they really need it?).
But we’re covering old ground, back to the ‘all else is impossible’….
Why couldn’t it have been cash in the socks? Perhaps it wasn’t his and he was carrying it on behalf of someone else (and didn’t want it to be too obvious he had plenty of dollars). Certainly the unused train ticket argues against “…tell stories of ordinary life, of difficult times”. Granted, low funds is a reason to hold onto something that appears to have limited value (perhaps in the hope of seeking a refund as per my previous), but in that case it should be something that you protect (and keep in your wallet). Are we to think that someone took his wallet, removed some of the contents and returned them to his pocket?
It’s hard to look at any theory and not see problems in the proposed narrative. Too much about the case doesn’t seem consistent – and yet individually they might all be less significant that we give them credit. At the same time, why does the solution have to be sinister? Is it possible, for example (purely a hypothetical example, not particularly supporting it), that the man on Tuesday night WAS SM, and that some good Samaritan took him in hoping to help (feeding a pasty (or better yet JS’s minestrone) and trying to help him recover – especially if they had a background in nursing). When the man died in the night said good Samaritan was unsure what to do and whether they might be implicated in something, and decided to return the body to where they had found him (after all, to their way of thinking, he would have died there anyway). But this still doesn’t explain the missing wallet. And it doesn’t really satisfactorily explain the pocket contents. In fact it’s probably unreasonable to suppose someone innocent would be so reluctant to involve the authorities, unless either they thought something they had done might look suspicious, or they had other skeletons in the closet. Perhaps this is the reason everything is so confusing? Perhaps 2 or more otherwise independent stroylines are overlapping, and what seems to be a clue about one person is in fact pointing to some detail about another.
When Brown is interviewed in the 1970s doco, he points out that not ALL tags were missing. In fact he highlights a ‘relatively new Calico shirt’ from the suitcase that still has tags in tact. Is this consistent with someone relying on charity? Is it possible that he had come into enough money to buy a new shirt, but still had old functional clothes sourced from charity? Or perhaps a charity had received donations of new as well as older clothes?
One way or another, it’s a tangled web. There are many dogs that didn’t bark that night, and many impossibilities that still haven’t been proved impossible. As with our friend Sherlock, the task for the Amateur Detective is to demonstrate a probable (perhaps the most probable) story and account for all available evidence. Their role is not to prosecute a case, so they have the luxury of not needing to be infallible. Of course, as long as that’s the case, our solution is not infallible either – so the best we have is a plausible supposition. Perhaps part of the problem with our whole SM narrative is the traditional assumptions that explain his morning at the Adelaide Railway Station. Over time we seem to accept as fact a whole bunch of assumptions that now form an almost-concrete version of his morning – despite very little evidence (other than the suitcase and the ticket) of his presence there that morning.
But perhaps the modern day Sherlock can come help us filter our suppositions to the most plausible explanation….
Essentially a well costructed piece of fiction that, whilst ommitting and adding some items to SM’s detailed property list eg. an overcoat on the minus side, extra ties pencils etc. on the plus side. (I only mention these in order to defray flack from undesirables). To get to the main thrust of the thread, yes only one pair of thick knitted socks (by hand or machine?) on the body, unusual for summer, suggesting that his shoes may have been perhaps too sloppy in fit, further pointing to charity issue for both. It is indeed a possibility that the absence of the usual extra socks could be put down to their use for protective storage of other property such as rifle barrels, Minox spy cameras, gold Tudor watches or precious stones etc. However, I’d say that an additional contender might well be that such small, albeit essential items like socks, could be had from ready sources other than his usual dependence on charity (there’s some limits to the lengths a proud man will go). My logic based answer is that just like Lee Child’s ‘Jack Reacher’, our man might just as well buy them fresh off a merchant’s shelf whenever he felt that a change was due; cheap as chips and better than washing dirty pairs in a hotel sink one might well contend.
Farmer John: I have ‘deduced’ that the problem might be ‘eliminated’ by getting Yale to send VM (1) off to John the other VM (2) imposter in Connecticut for public exposure, then put them up for sale as ‘a nice pair of twin 15th century assimalies and ‘well worth the authentic parchment value alone’. A.C. (Phony) Doyle would approve for sure.
2Koen
“Scarce evidence” doesn’t prevent people from making very strong statements, so one can only reply “Do your Euler circles ever intersect??”
“Voynich elimination” is very subjective question, but it has nice psychological* aspect. If one names his favorite theory first and then creates criteria and performs “elimination” process – will the results be compatible?:)
*psychiatric, if your circles don’t intersect
The ‘eliminate the impossible…’ policy will work in some cases/to some extent – the laws of nature, some alibis (not involving twins or ‘things not occurring at the time it is said they did’ and other staples of detective fiction).
There are various caveats – the ‘state of present knowledge and technology’ (for example, in SH’s time ‘what powered the sun’ or, until the 1920s, knowing how to distinguish human and animal blood; while the Roger Bacon VM thesis was a theoretical possibility until it was dated to the early 15th century ).
And – there may be more than one ‘improbable but not impossible’ answer.
Nick: How dare you diss Sherlock Holmes? As a child I read all Sherlock Holmes stories at least 3 times and am still a huge fan, so to see him treated with such disrespect appalls me.
Whilst I think Conan Doyle was amazing, however one problem that I have long had is the way that in his stories the criminals committed their crimes for rational reasons or at least easily explicable reasons. We know that this is not the case humans beings often behave irrationally. Taking an example from the time when the Holmes stories were written, it is clear to me that the actions of Jack the Ripper were far from rational though obvious that does not mean that there is not a rational explanation for them.
Nevertheless I am of the opinion that you have been too hard on good old Sherlock Holmes and whilst there are clearly problem as described in the Holmesian Fallacy I think that approach has more value in moving towards a theory than is suggested.
Also when you say: “Holmes would surely think not: whatever its relation to the Rubaiyat allegedly found in the car around that time was, that was surely a separate story entirely, one quite unknown to them.”
I am sceptical, as Conan Doyle from my recollection almost always constructed his stories so that every detail was explained and it is hard to imagine that such an important detail would be left unexplained.
But I should say that this post was highly intelligent interesting and well-written as always.
One thing that I written more than once before is that it the context of the Voynich ( I have barely given the Somerton Man a thought) I regard probabilistic thinking often more useful than deductive logic in developing theories. As a rule of thumb I would be more inclined towards the admittedly weaker statement: “Once you have eliminated the very unlikely whatever theories remain it is very probably the truth that one of these theories is correct.” Now clearly if you have a very large enough number of very unlikely scenarios this would not be true e.g. it is very unlikely that anyone individual will win the lottery, but it is certain that someone will win. However I do think the method I have described in the statement though not perfect is still of value in practice in progressing towards a solution.
Mark: You have me at a disadvantage re Doyle, may I dare to say apologetically, for I’ve never had the inclination to read anything he wrote, apart from his alleged Marie Celeste letter. Knowing that he was also said to be connected to the Piltdown man hoax, was also a little offputing. Just last week I read my very first Agatha Christie, for the want of better copy and whilst the plot itself was rather pobvious, it did make mention of a vague SM related theory of mine concerning nicotine poisoning. As it so happened, I had also just read a true online account of a Melbourne lass named Nellie Fink? who almost succumbed to olliander shrub poisoning by unknown persons with malicious intent. So there you go, it might have been a winner for dodgy Doyle, had he thought of it first.
John Saunders: Conan Doyle is to have been a spiritualist and even to have believed in fairies. Nevertheless, despite these failings, in terms of his writing I think he is a real master. Also, even though a possible logical fallacy in argument has been highlighted by Nick, I think the Sherlock Holmes stories promote and in broad terms exemplify the scientific method and logical thinking. Yes. I am sure that there is more scope for a wider critique of the arguments presented in his stories, but on the whole I think what he does is very impressive.
Speaking of the impossible, I notice Fed is rearing his head again….
I thought I’d posted this picture in the past somewhere, but apparently not. This is a picture of Canadian Foreign Minister Pearson meeting Russian foreign minister Molotov. You’ll notice a tall unidentified companion on the right (with a hat in hand, not that it matters, because I think everyone wore hats back then). I have previously asserted (and still believe) this is Fedosimov. It’s probably a bold statement to make (but I think no more bold than the assertion that the Fed that we can trace through the 50s and 60s was a different Fed).
Interestingly, I put the face into some of the 3D modelling software and found the profile looked very similar to the other Fed photo (although I don’t think the quality on those 3D attempts is actually all that good/reliable (especially on the important features).
While (obviously) I have limited evidence to back up my claim (other than for mine the evidence shows Fed was still alive well after 1948), I think there’s even less evidence to suggest that the Fed at the IAEA through the 50s and 60s was someone else (especially given that his disappearance from them in the 60s would tie in perfectly with a public servant retirement age).
Perhaps it’s impossible. But then there should be plenty of evidence to disprove (not just challenge) it, right?
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-ussr-moscow-minister-of-foreign-affaires-of-canada-lester-pearson-80584631.html
Milongal: If it is old Fed-up; he certainly towers over Pearson who was no midget and so six six would not be an over estimation of his alt. That would leave our SM a little off the mark in spite of his estimated 5′ 11″ by Sgt. Leane. I guess the pic post dates 48 which we understand was the year the Canadian was promoted to his post in Foreign Affairs.
Nick: I’m certain your contention that the Keane slippers were too small for the dead man, merely as a consequence of his shoes being larger, might well be construed just as well in a contrary perspective. So SM, intent on seeking to fit himself out with both house and street footware, at his none too amply stocked second hand outfitter, firstly needs to ensure that his meagre coppers are going to be well spent. He must see, as Sherlock undoubtedly would, that the smart option is to go for a good comfortable pair of mufti slippers first, before then looking for hard to come by good quality street shoes. If happening to be slightly oversize, they can be made to fit by the clever use of thick socks, such as the ex army woollen type, obtained cheap from one of the many war surplus markets circa. 1948. He might even be tempted to buy a Green’s army lighter sans flints for a bob or two and accept a little steel airforce comb and a nice officers dress tie as token gifts in appreciation of his custom. In other words my dear Watson, a little different, but still elementary nonetheless..
Milongal: Looks like a good fit, especially the ears and the Jowl, along with the man’s exceptional height for a Slav. If there are minor facial differences, they can be easily put down to masking by the ever ready Soviet make up team working with the international Pravda bureau. Played fair, done good and finally put that long piece of commie stooge back out in the cold where he belongs.
There is no evidence of socks in the Voynich MS.
I wonder what it tells us.
Rene: ah, that’s absence of evidence, whereas I’m talking about evidence of absence. 😉
Thanks Gordon for the comparison – I disagree with some of your assessment, but as you say, this isn’t a competition and your perfectly entitled to chase him as SM if you think he fits the bill. I only brought the photo up because for mine I thought we’d eliminated him a long time ago, so I was surprised we were still going that way…
It may well not be him, but in any event my assertion that it is isn’t any weaker than the assertion that Fed is SM IMHO.
@JS that pics from about 56, I think – so a decade after the definite Fed pic was taken. For what it’s worth, a bit of googling for Molotov and others finds pics and vids of what I think think are younger versions of this guy. His height certainly appears massive, and he is quite bulky too – which for mine fits with Gold’s description** of Paul/Pawel/Pavel rather well.
One thing that keeps coming up in my searching is that PI Fedosimov (I’m not going to argue over whether it’s the same one or not, because as I’ve stated ad nauseum in the past, the lack of any evidence of there being two means the more obvious assumption is there was only one) is that Fedosimov was not a major player in the espionage game, and certainly appears to have been anti nuclear weapons. Although in the Venona papers he’s originally thought to be a major player (no pun intended, ok, maybe it was a little bit), it later turns out he is the less prolific Stepan rather than Maj (who was chief KGB Resident at the time) – in fact he is suspected, not known to be Stepan.
His low profile is further evidence by the difficulty to find much reference to him (even before his appearances in Venona), and the lack of photos too (which are a bit odd given he is often reported as being Vice-Consul – but I suppose this is a position that might be held by many insignifcant fish). His only definite appearance throughout is the meeting with Gold – where Gold seems to think he is quite insignificant too***
His move from the US appears to have been a loss of faith in his effectiveness, and while I could imagine this being read as a reason to get rid of him, to me it more suggests a consistent line with the Fedosimov who goes on to publish an anti-nuclear paper, and then represent the USSR at a decade worth of IAEA meetings.
So as far as I’m concerned, it sounds like Fed was a pretty small fish who, while originally used for his size to intimidate was never really found suitable for the spy game directly, but instead worked as a diplomat even during his brief posting in NY (possibly aware of some of the espionage at a high level, but reasonably out of touch with the exact shape of the game). This set him up for a nice Public Service position as an advisor (again, his apparent lack of seniority suggests small fry and explains the few photos available). Follow your own Fed threads wherever you want by all means, but don’t expect me to invest too much efforts trying to prove or disprove either way – because as far as I’m concerned I already think the odds are stacked very heavily against Fed being (or being in any way ionvolved with) SM….
**Gold’s Description (see also note about occupation):
“I went to the Earle Theater. He didn’t have to mention time or any-
thing, because that had all been set before. I went to the Earle Theater,
and I was met there, but I was not met by Yakovlev. I was met by a
quite large and rather tough looking character. I don’t know. I met
him for just minutes, actually, but he gave me a sort of tigerish impres-
sion. He moved very lightly, sort of on the balls of his feet, as he came
toward me in this lounge. ”
…
“He said — he actuallv sort of grunted — he said, ‘I am
Paul.'”
***Gold’s underestanding of Fed’s role:
Mr. Morris: Do yon know what his occupation was ?
Mr. Gold: I didn’t, at that time. He looked to me like a strong-
arm man. He looked like a thug, physically.
Mr. Morris: After identifying him for the FBI, have von found out
what his occupation was?
Mr. Gold: Yes. I understand that he was a chauffeur at the Soviet
consulate in New York City.
Nick & Rene: I’m thinking that absence of evidence or alternately evidence of absence is purely of academic interest and thereby an irrelevance to the issue. There being a marked physical absence of shoes in the VM to create conditions likely to necessitate the wearing of socks; exception might be conceded with the crossbowman, however that depiction suggests that he may be wearing Ugg boots which would also obviate the need. By the way, how can we be sure that ‘gallows or 4o’ glyphs etc. don’t translate to woolen knitted socks ala SM.
Milongal: Lester ‘Mike’ Pearson was 6′ 2″ tall and his Ruskie mate Molotov six even. Whoever the accompanying giant may have been, he wouldn’t have stopped anything short of 6′ 8″ by visual comparison of the pic. Certainly could not have been the diminutive Russian Sherlock, Vasily Livinov; elementary what?..
@JS: I think the angle of the shot distorts the heights . He’s definitely somewhat taller than the tow of them, but him being a (mincy 😛 ) half-step ahead does make it hard to judge. Certainly taller than the average Ruski. Hard to say off a single shot, given where they are in stride affects how tall they look. I’m not sure if we’ve seen an (accurate) measure of Fed’s size….in the book cited elsewhere (which for what it’s worth sounds like it’s been embellished a bit – at least based on the transcripts of Gold’s interrogation I’ve seen (google: “SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES” and look for a link from the CIA Vault)) is quoted as saying something along the lines of “tall, perhaps 6’2” – so that’s an estimate by either Gold or the author of the book, but all we can really take out of it is “tall, taller than average even”. So, for mine, he certainly fits the bill on the height.
From one of the FBI docs we get:
By letter dated January 30, 1951, the Washington Field Office
advised that lookout notices had been placed with the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, and that stop notices had been placed with the Bureau
of Customs, in order that the Bureau might be advised of any reentry of
Fedosimov into the United States.
I’ve flagged this before. If Fed was SM, then the US didn’t know. I think previously it’s been floated that they would have put an alert on him so that the Russians didn’t know they knew (or something). This doesn’t make sense to me, because it implies they were expecting someone on the inside to report back (these sort of alerts aren’t publicly published at the time – see if you can find who’s on a watchlist now). At the same time, given the photo had been circulated it is almost certain the Russians would have expected the US to know, and even more likely that an insider at a US department would be aware the department has seen the photo (and possibly identified it). For this scenario to work, the powers that be must’ve had a strong idea on who the insider was, and that they weren’t privvy to the fact that the photo had been seen – or at least that an identification had been made. I simply find it hard to buy this, especially since Gold had identified Fed from a photo – so they were aware of who he was and what he looked like (and had a photo of him). Of course, the photo could predate 1948 and mean nothing, but the point is the FBI knew of him, and would have known he was dead, and had no reason to put an immigration alert on him.
One avenue I am considering following up (part of me thinks Fed is a waste of time, part of me is actually fascinated with his story irrespective), is immigration records at the time of some of the IAEA conferences. We know some of them were attended with his wife, and we know (from US immigration and from US ‘known Russians Abroad’ lists that the pre-SM Fed’s wife was Vera Sergeyevna…so if we can confirm that IAEA Fed’s wife was also Vera Sergeyevna…
As we’ve referenced in the past, the US keeps (or used to keep) a record of Soviet Officials Abroad. In the past, we found a record of Fed (and Vera) on a 1953 one – but it was in an attachment from 1949 listing ‘last information’ as 7/1948, and mentioning that they left the US on the Podeba for USSR. Given that 7/1948 predates the finding of SM, it meant very little (at least from the perspective of eliminating Fed as SM).
In a subsequent search, I’ve stumbled accross the 1957 List of Soviet Officials abroad. On page 159 (195 if you count the contents pages), it lists:
(Libya)
FEDOSIMOV, Pavel Ivanovich, Latest Reported Position ‘1st Secretary’, Date of Information ‘4/57’
Wife: Vera Sergeyevna
When all we had was a Pavel I. FEDOSIMOV at the IAEA, I thought it was probable that they were the same, but sort of accepted the plausibility of them being separate people. Now for me to entertain the idea that SM is PIF, I need to accept that there were 2 Pavel Ivanovich Fedosimov, both with wives called Vera Sergeyevna. The probability is not impossible (‘Pavel Invanovich’ and ‘Vera Sergeyevna’ are not uncommon first/second name combinations), but couple that with diplomatic postings, and we start to stretch the probability very thin.
For those interested (even if to dispute):
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP70-00601R000100100002-3.pdf
Got to page 195 in the PDF, 4th Entry.
Nick: Talking of ‘absence of evidence’ per se, I’ll maintain, until proven otherwise that there never has been eye witness testimony that provides us with a reliable height for SM. No one can tell us where 5′ 11″ came from; first accounts of it were apparently given to the local press for publication, presumably by police. Of some fifteen people known to have seen the body over a six month period, only Dr. John Dwyer made any reference towards its proportion, by his use of the word “tallish”. The good doctor, standing at a respectable tad over 5′ 7″ and known to have been rather ‘vanish’ may well have been refering to his slab patient as being not so much taller than himself. We might like to assume that the famous partime anthropologist John Cleland also had a bit of a chance to examine the body, however, all he was able to provide the inquest in his notes was “height to be advised”. On the contrary there is ample evidence to refute Sgt. Leane’s claim of 5′ 11″ not having had any personal documented contact with the dead man. There is of course the comparison sizes of his footware being disproportionately to well known height for foot size estimates; likewise the factory med size tag label on his Marko trousers; an average man’s height being less than 5′ 8″ at the likely time of manufacture. Also we might bring up the general lack of recall from the bus conductor, train ticket seller, nor by our railway cloak room attendant etc. etc., all of whom were interviewed soon after discovery and not one even offering vague possible sighting of a well dressed, dignified tall man sans the usual hat, overcoat or briefcase amongst the lot. That’s what we might call evidence of absence Nick and it is rather compelling in my perhaps convaluted mind’s eye.
Milongal: For your information, I think you’ll find that the very tall bespectacled balding fellow, further to the rear of the threesome strolling in line towards the camera, is George Pavolvich Ignatieff, Mike Pearson’s department chief. As for the other ‘bean stalk’ in the grey overcoat, I’ve no idea but I guess he might pass for Flash’s missing ‘Ravel Fedopisimov’ on a Pritikan diet.
Milongal: The 40s era Pavel BS blog photo actually reveals the subject to have been a lot slimmer than one might have suspected; Your 55 photo extra, the lean fellow in the somewhat out of place, similar grey overcoat and the fairly unusual high crown and broad brim trilby hat could be a good additional candidate for Fedosimov, albeit nine years down the glowing red Soviet path towards a pretence of detente.
@JS he looks rather disproportionate, doesn’t he? Like in ‘Little Rascals’ where 3 kids stand on top of each other to appear adult 🙂 , but revisiting the original photo, there is a certain similarity (even the lighter coat). But I still like the front guy – he’s just had 10 years of Kotlety and Vodka to ‘beef up a bit’ (interestingly the reports of him being ‘large and thuggish’ seem a little at odds with a bean pole).
Slight digression, the baldy man to the left of your beanpole looks rather tall too – Maybe tall Ruski’s aren’t all that uncommon?
TBH whether any of them are or aren’t Fed is largely irrelevant. I think there’s a facial resemblance (allowing 10+ years) on the big guy in the foreground, but off 2 photos so far apart on such angles it’s hard to say (much like Mikkelsen and SM have a vague resemblence). Having found Fed and his wife in 1953 in Libya, I’m again comfortable with my previous stance that SM is not Pav – and I don’t think a photo will necessarily prove or disprove either way (especially given how many candidates have already been considered to ‘bear a strong resemblence’ to SM).
But we’ll see….
Milongal: … and in the words of ‘The Great Pumkin’ something to the effect of you now being designated a “fully accredited AfIO investigator; not merely a good researcher”. I’m a bit miffed, seeing you getting all the ‘good lad’ pats on the head and humble ol’ me only meriting ribuke for all my noble efforts.
I have been reading about the lack of socks. Perhaps the SM wore rubber boots over his shoes and thus required no socks. The absence of vomit could then be explained. The vomit fell onto the rubber boots and someone could have removed the boots from the scene and discarded them. His shoes would be clean and absent from sand or water.
Rick: Actually the shoes were not totally devoid of sand traces and furthermore they may have even been subjected to the cleansing effects of gentle tidal wash. Not quite sure what you’re on about with the rubber boots mate; SM was damp when found and was wearing socks in any case, so we might put the rubberies aside until the water comes in again. shall we?..
John; I had read at the beginning of the article that there was a lack of dirt or vomit on the SM’s shoes. I made a mistake about the absence of socks on his feet,and I see now that his shoes were wet also. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Milongal: And you thought you were free and home with Pavel. No such luck old man; he is and will remain Somerton Man, dead to rights, in the warped mind of our all knowing, clear eyed Great Pumpkin. ps. Venona sucks and Klaus Fuchs.
@JS: People will believe what people will believe I disagree with them until I see some evidence (which for mine at the moment is stacked the opposite way). I have Fed as a diplomat first and a spy mainly by association (as much as any Russian diplomat at the time would have touched espionage to some degree). But end of the day I’m about as likely to sway their views any more than they would mine…
Macro: That may have been Maxwell SMART, aka agent 86. I think you’ll find that his deep cover female side kick, agent 99, aka Elizabeth Stainforth, or one of them, successfully turned a certain benign ‘East Indiaman’ by means of the age old disinformation ruse.
Hi,
Who is the actor on the picture ?
farmerjohn: Wilfrid; after all is said and done (to death) might just be the only theoretical identifiable candidate (Voynich by Voynich), left standing in socks and underware, after all the eliminating has been done. That Wilfred would have been more likely to sport braces as opposed to Somerton Man’s rarely mentioned missing leather belt would be merely academic, in accord with the times. And we do know for sure that his duds were not elasticised due to war shortages….Now where were we..Oh yes please inform Mr. Francis that we’ll get back to him about who that all important Sherlock Holmes actor might have been.
Nick, the tools … are you ready to discuss their use?
You go first. His is your patch after all.
Nick: If you can’t be bothered stroking the dear old stalker’s ego, allow me to act in your stead. Perhaps some mention of the shortened butter knife might be in order to put things into perspective and to bed. It was claimed to be used in place of a car key to manipulate a five pin door lock if that can be seriously contemplated, then followed up with zinc sheet to hot-wire the ignition wires. Keeping in mind that autos in those days came with a one key fits all deal, why bother with messy hot wiring; surely if you can slip the key way of the door lock with a butter knife why not use it in the ignition as well.
One ’48 Vauxhall key fits a ’47 Oldsmobile does it dusty?
On another note, do think 6 pencils might constitute a healthy supply of lubricant?
A ’48 Vauxhall key was most likely to fit the door(s), boot (trunk), and ignition but perhaps not an after factory lockable glove compartment in which the ownership and registration papers were usually kept as enticement to ailing middle-aged car thieves. As for your ’47 Olds, I have a vague feeling that any locks fitted were likely to have been top notch and not so susceptable to the blade of a busted butter knife. Regarding the pencils, I’d go further and say enough to lubricate the keyway of ‘every lock that aint’t locked when no-one’s around’ though a handy can of Kiwi boot polish with it’s canauba wax base would have worked just as well as graphite on a simple cylinder pin lock. Any more queries, don’t hesitate and I’ll try to explain in layman’s terms.
That was to be expected, blarney from Hanoi to Honduras. Tell me, do you think that the unidentified black powder shaken from the brush might have been graphite, the well-known lubricant in locksmithing circles?
Peteb: Jumping about like a gin’s folly aint gonna win you no brownie points over this way. As for Bob Cowan who did the poison analysis. He merely followed the view that the death was a case of likely suicide and came up with nothing to suggest otherwise. Yes he was apparently shown the Keane brush six months after the fact and, when asked for an opinon, he might thus have responded with a noncommittal “f’d if I know Lionel, that wasn’t part of my brief” The black residue was never offered for chemical analysis from what Feltus mentioned in his novel and that’s that, so your exaspiration is unfounded, capice?
Peteb: How much flamin graphite does a cove need to by-pass a ’48 Oldmobile wafer lock. With that amount you could jigger open every locked door in the Pentagon with more to spare for Trump’s tower.
Is that Kiwi boot polish on your fingers, crusty, or do you have the dreaded Can Tho expatriate itch? The one that doesn’t go away.
Tell me, do you think the sheathing was used to protect the tools, or to stop piercing the lining of the pocket they were carried in ?
The pocket that was repaired with Barbour thread.
The adhoc tape sheathing was par for the course to keep sharp instrument/tools safe from the hands of those not concerned with their designated use, as well as to protect them from the elements, grime, moisture etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had been lubed from a tube of graphite grease which your average aged and ailing car thief would not be without. The Barbour thread useage was just as likely to have been post mortem and Leane’s disclosure of it’s discovery, releasing details of it’s use for mending then getting it to the Advertiser, was just a little quick of the mark to impress doubters. Whilst most of us still don’t have a clue as to who our SM was, at least we might credit him with having pride enough in his general appearance to treat his best clobber with a little more respect than the cut and paste job to which he was accredited.
“The body, when I examined it was cold, cold damp and stiff”, that according to the inquest testimony of Constable Moss, who was no stranger to attending similar death death scenes over many years as a local first attender. It would appear that he arrived on Somerton beach at around 7am when the temperature was around 70 degrees by reasonable estimation, having not dropped bellow 68 overnight. Dr. Bennett gave an estimate time of expiry of 2am based only on visual rigor and not by temperature taking which seems a tad negligent. So could the man have realistically been cold enough for Moss to have accented his claim by repeating it as if to give more emphasis to his deliberation. Seems somewhat mystifying because the subject was also warmly clad and that, even if damp would not be likely to lose so much body heat in the space of four hours, with the sun already well up by seven and the temperature set to peak in the nineties. Food for thought, which is not a favourite saying of mine!
The thread was noted by Prof Cleland. I don’t see much value in adding anything more to the farce this topic has become under your guidance, Nick, Sanders is a troll, you encourage him and any debate suffers as a result.
Perhaps the knowledge that advances are being made elsewhere has unbalanced your moderator’s instincts and you are deliberately allowing his deluge of mis-information to cover up your own lack of progress – perhaps it’s time you quit the Somerton Man field, Nick, rather than be tainted by Sander’s unending stream of faked up narrative.
Peteb: I thought he was your dog?
Damn and blast, the carpet’s ruined now. Look at all that.
All my dogs are bred to purpose, Sanders is a mongrel.
Nick: Sorry to get you all flustered old, didn’t realise he would get such a bee in your bonnet from being caught in slips by the erronious Barbour/Cleland miss hit which is a caution. When next our fiend (sic) goes for a big six, he must remember to check stance and ballance ie. “Sanders unending stream of faked up narrative”. So I’m a troll, (nothing new) just recently I was “Masterfull” which is par for the course, coming from a stalking horse groomer and like stable friend. ‘Hey Kerrie Anne what’s your game girl…can anybody play”?…
PS. For any other punters with poor memory skills, the Barbour thread/trouser stitching comparison was first disclosed by Adelaide press 18th January 1949, around five months before Professor Cleland first became involved in the case. Bozo’s insincere apologies will off course be cheerfully accepted on that basis; As for the other childish nonsence, I’ll let those jibes go through to slips or the keeper and allow those players to assess whether an appeal is warranted.
Nick & Pete: Not so funny or out of character for me. Brings to mind an evening in 1989 when I was an early guest at the Aust. Ambassadorial residence in Hanoi. I unknowingly had tracked dog shit from the front vestibule up the carpeted stairs and into the immaculately ‘deep pile’ lounge room. Mr. Ambassador being already known to me through the local Foreign Information Ministry and our Saigon tennis club, whilst not amused, but to his credit, got down on all fours and assisted his maids to clean-up before the main contingent of high rollers arrived. I was fittingly repositioned as far from the other guests as conveniently posdible for fear that my size twelves were likely to offend if given the chance.
Sir Les: great story, thanks for sharing. 🙂
Bozo: Being given such status is an undeserved honour to be sure and certainly something to keep in mind for when the credits are tallied up for assistance rendered etc. I’m hoping that your rather mediocre opinion will be supported by all those other clowns to whom I have given offence for a lack of tact and like clownish contributions in recent times.
Peteb: A man prepared to admit to his foolish mistakes is a man indeed.
One that will not, is not, which in case of the Barbour thread means you.
Wise saying of the day: A pair of cosy felted slippers (not necessarily poop slippers) helps maintain immaculateness in ambassadorial residences and prevent diplomatical tangles.
Our star narrater/interviewer from ’77/’78 Stewart Littlemore makes headlines again. Just to-day he secured a great plea deal, in exchange for 37 years hard on a drug importation bust, client being a Canberra business man of 45. He might well have gotten six months more had not Stuey put up such a spirited argument for leniency on grounds that defendant showed contrition for his non vital facilitating role in the half billion dollar heist. Well done that man, hope he got his fee in advance.
I’m not normally one to give out praise on line, for fear that it may lead to unfair allegations of brown nosing or worse; however in the case of Peteb’s latest post on car door-lock defeating by use of needle and hair pin (no butter knife) with inset diagrams for those not so mechanically minded, my praise could not be higher. Not to worry about the replication of exact detail from my own post of 12th inst., for it shows quite clearly that there are times when even one with uncommonly severe intellectual limitations, is able to glean what I’m on about, notwithstanding that my like methodology was in response to his own sneering jibe on yet another SM site that I’ve deliberately ‘highjacked’.
If Pat goes, I go, for now….
https://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/OA18.1960/
Jo,
You couldn’t have selected a more suitable thread to finish up on so good for you. The accompanying off thread perloined Tbt link brings to mind Grace Cossington-Smith’s ‘Sister Susie sows socks and shirts for soldiers.’ circa. 1915 masterpiece.
‘.
@Jo,
Tell Pat to come back if Abbott gives more. She can start again this time with the truth.
@DM: you mean about my being “a Mysoginistic [sic] A…hole” that at least be partly true, but I’m sure Pat had her reasons for using such endearing words to describe a long time fan.