Seventy years ago this weekend, a man’s body was found on Somerton Beach just south-west of Adelaide: our inability to identify this “Somerton Man” or even to reconstruct any significant part of his life has turned him into one of South Australia’s favourite cold cases. His unexplained death has inspired books, novels, TV documentaries and countless web pages and blog posts: behind this mini-industry is a panoply of breathless conspiracy theories, ranging from spurned suicidal lover to Russian rocket spy to inter-state car criminal (as if anyone would even consider such a thing, hrrmmmh).
On this day, though, I think it’s time to take a rest from that whole treadmill, and to look at the Somerton Man from a quite different angle.
History, Evidence, Disappointment
Cold cases are, almost definition, historical: so to “do history” on them, we need to select both historical evidence and a historical methodology / mindset.
But even though social historians love nothing more than diaries, journals, or even tax records of ordinary people, for the Somerton Man we only have what one might call tertiary social history evidence – incidental objects of low social signification such as cigarettes, laundry tags, chewing gum, combs, and (what I would categorise as) a fairly random assortment of men’s clothes. Can we read social history clues and cues to locate the Somerton Man in a social milieu? People have tried this trick, for sure: but I think it is fair to say that this has yielded very little of use.
Similarly, even though political historians tend to work from a more high-end (yet slim) frame of reference (from Chifley to Churchill), it hasn’t stopped researchers from trying to read the mysterious unreadable note attributed to the Somerton Man as implying some kind of espionage-centric back-story for him: a Russian spy scouting out South Australia’s uranium secrets, or defecting from some international conference. Yet the supposed ‘tradecraft’ evidence holding this aloft is something that I’ve never found any genuine substance to.
Finally, despite the South Australian police’s loss of almost all its evidence (Gerry Feltus had only a small folder of fragments to work with), hundreds of newspaper articles on Trove plus the detailed text of inquest reports have yielded a fine factual slurry for researchers to sieve and then rake over in search of That Single Golden Nugget Of Information That Turns Everything Upside Down. Yet even the massed eyeballs of the Internet’s army of DIY forensic historians – sometimes derided as armchair detectives, but who have actually managed to uncover all manner of interesting evidence – have struggled to gain any significant kind of purchase on the Somerton Man’s slippy upwards slopes. What was his profession? What was his nationality? Satisfactory answers remain out of reach for even such (apparently basic) questions as “if the Somerton Man wasn’t “T. Keane”, why did his suitcase have T. Keane’s tie and underwear?”
In short, none of the historical hats we have worn when we try to understand the Somerton Man seems to have had the (mythical) power of a Holmesian deerstalker: and is the game even afoot in the way many (most?) people think it really ought to be? The answer would seem to be that it is not.
As of December 2018, I don’t believe that we have any genuine idea who the Somerton Man was, or precisely why he died (i.e. mishap, murder, or suicide), or where he had come from, or even what he was doing in Adelaide at all. For all of these, we have well-stocked warehouses of might-possibly-have-beens, for sure: but this is a situation only someone wanting to weave and embellish a story around the scanty facts could be truly satisfied with. Anyone who wants to know what happened to lead up to the Somerton Man’s death is, for now, likely to be in a state of disappointment.
Random Clothes
Putting all that accumulated historical disappointment to one side, I actually think we are very close to being able to reconstruct a little about the Somerton Man’s life and times in a useful way: and even if the precise details remain murky (and may remain so for some time), I suspect that there’s still a lot we can now say.
For a start, his clothes were not from a single shop or town or even country (some were American, some were Australian): even his shoes and slippers were different sizes. Others may disagree, but I don’t think this sartorial randomness can be read as a sign of affluence or of taste, or even of implying he was on some kind of undercover operation. Rather, to my eyes it strongly indicates that he was just plain poor – his clothing has all the hallmarks of charity donations, of Seaman’s Missions, of gifts by charity’s hospital visitors.
From all this, I strongly suspect that he, like so many others in the years immediately following WW2, was a recent immigrant to the country (he had air mail stickers in his suitcase), and quite probably not a legal one (no official record of him could be found). Exactly where he originally came from I can’t say: I suspect that the faded tan on his legs may imply that he had earlier that year been working outdoors, perhaps riding horses on a farm. Remember that Paul Lawson stated:
On looking at the deceased legs I am of the opinion that he was used to wearing high heel riding boots. I form that opinion because the muscles of his legs were formed high up behind the knees, similar to the muscles of a woman who wears high heeled shoes. [Gerry Feltus, “The Unknown Man”, p.85.]
I should also note what John Burton Cleland wrote about the air mail stickers:
Air-mail stickers in suitcase – corresponded with some one at a distance – other State more likely than Britain (special air-mail letter forms usually used for latter).
All the same, my current suspicion is that he arrived by surreptitious means (e.g. using fake papers) in Australia around October 1948, perhaps from the United States, perhaps staying in New Zealand for a period of time (where the Rubaiyat seems to have come from) en route, and – like Charles Mikkelsen – was corresponding with one or more people there. But all of that remains just a guess.
The Known Man
Who was the Somerton Man? Apart from the nurse Jessica Harkness / Jo Thomson (who told her daughter that she knew who the Somerton Man was, but wouldn’t tell the police at the time or even Gerry Feltus decades after the event), not a single person has admitted to knowing who he was. Nobody at all! As for me, I don’t believe for a New York second that the Somerton Man somehow entered Australia and made his way to Somerton Beach to die without encountering en route a whole load of people – fifty to a hundred at a minimum – who would subsequently recognize him if they wanted to. And so I think that the title of Gerry Feltus’s book – “The Unknown Man” – belies what I think will prove to be a difficult truth to swallow about the Somerton Man: that a whole set of people knew who he was, but for broadly the same reason chose to say nothing.
The Italian word for this is omertà – a code of silence surrounding Mafia criminal activities, along with a shared, mutual refusal to give any evidence to the police. (Even former police.) Everyone knows what happens to squealers, even the KGB: even though the CIA says the story about captured double agent Pyotr Popov being thrown alive into a furnace isn’t actually true, it is very likely still presented as if it were true to GRU new recruits, to persuade them of the value of “omertà-ski”. And let’s not pretend that the Novichok attack never happened, right?
Anyway, when Gerry Feltus had worked out the name of the (unnamed) nurse whose phone number was written on the specific Rubaiyat connected to the slip of paper in the dead man’s pocket, he interviewed her several times. Yet even though, as a retired police officer, he knew full well that she told him nothing of the truth surrounding the dead man that she was clearly aware of, he never really twigged why that was the case. For me, though, the reason for her prolonged silence seems all too obvious: that she was aware of the omertà surrounding the dead man, and wasn’t prepared to be the first one to say That Which Must Not Be Spoken out loud.
The presence of an Italian organized crime syndicate in Melbourne is something that became all too apparent in the 1960s, with the spate of Victoria Market murders being triggered (literally) by the accession wars following the deaths (by natural causes) of crime godfather Domenico “The Pope” Italiano and his enforcer Antonio “The Toad” Barbara in 1962. This crime group was described at the time in a secret report by John T. Cusack as follows:
It is frequently referred to by its adherents as the Society. Some, particularly outsiders, call it mafia. Actually it is not mafia. The latter is exclusively Sicilian in origin and membership. Since the Society in Australia is exclusively Calabrian, it is obviously a derivation of the ancient Calabrian Secret Criminal Society known as the L’Onorata Societa (The Honoured Society), ‘Ndrangheta (Calabrian dialect for The Honoured Society), also referred to by some as Fibia.
From my perspective, the most powerful explanation for the silence surrounding the Somerton Man would be not that nobody knew who he was, but instead that he was some kind of footsoldier in a criminal society (I would predict Melbourne, given that the Melbourne train arrived in Adelaide early). I suspect this was (in 1948) not the ‘Ndrangheta, but rather home-grown gangsters The Combine (more on that in a moment). More broadly, my inference is that lots of people knew exactly who he was, but deliberately chose to say nothing. Gerry Feltus certainly knew he was being spun a line by Jo Thomson, but perhaps he will live to be surprised by how many people knew who exactly “The (Un)known Man” was.
I hope that some day soon someone will come forward – even anonymously, seventy years on – to defy the code of silence and finally tell even a small part of the Somerton Man’s story.
Daphne Page
What was it like to deal with omertà in Australia in the late 1940s? Fortunately, we have a pretty good idea. Jo Thomson’s (soon-to-be) husband Prosper (George) Thomson got involved in a court case where he was wedged between a lady called Daphne Page and a dangerous Melbourne individual who he would not name in court. The judge seems to have taken a hearty dislike to everyone involved, somewhat reluctantly judging the case in George’s favour but ordering him to pay the costs.
From this, we know that “Early in December [1947] he [Thomson] went to Melbourne to sell a car for another man.” When a cheque from the “other man” bounced, Thomson was unable to do anything about it: and so refused to pass on the “black market balance” (that he hadn’t received) of the failed transaction to Daphne Page back in Adelaide. Page then told him she’d get her whole family to pretend that she’d instead loaned him £400 and would take him to court. In the end, the judge thought that Thomson’s (who had welched on a black market deal with Page when the Melbourne crim he’d sold to had welched on his half of a deal, and then told her to forget all about it) poor behaviour was more legally justifiable than Page’s poor behaviour: but it’s hard to feel grotesquely sympathetic towards either.
But even so, that’s what can easily happen when things as simple as buying or selling a car for its actual value are, thanks to the Price Commission, effectively pushed out onto the black market and criminalized. According to the Barrier Miner 15th June 1948, p.8:
Men in the trade said honest secondhand car dealers had almost been forced out of business during the war. Records showed that 90 per cent of all used car sales were on a friend-to-friend basis and they never passed through the trade.
So: the man the nurse Jo Thomson was living with was directly connected to dangerous Melbourne criminals who operated under a code of silence (George Thomson wouldn’t name the man in court). This is not a conjecture, this is just a consequence of being a garage proprietor and car dealer in 1948, a time when 90% of car buying and selling was done on the black market. Thomson expressed no shame or sorrow for having tried to broker a black market car deal between Daphne Page and Melbourne criminals (even if it went wrong), because that is what he had to do to stay in the car business: you might as well have asked a dog not to bark as ask him to change his ways.
Suggested Links to Melbourne
One story that appeared in the Adelaide News (26th January 1949) (and in the Sydney Daily Telegraph and Geraldton Guardian) suggested a connection between the Somerton Man and a Melbourne baccarat school:
Gamblers believe dead man was “nitkeeper”
Melbourne.- Two promininent Melbourne baccarat players who desire to remain anonymous, believe they knew the unknown man in the “Somerton beach body mystery.”
They saw the man’s picture in a Melbourne newspaper and said they thought they recognised him as a “nitkeeper” who worked at a Lonsdale street baccarat school about four years ago. They could not recall his name.
They said the man talked to few people. He was employed at the baccarat school for about 10 weeks, then left without saying why or where he was going.
Nitkeepers / cockatoos were basically lookout men, hired to stop police and undercover officers from getting inside the door: they were equally part of the street bookie’s world.
Gerry Feltus’s “The Unknown Man” (p.118) also included a cutting from the Mirror (no date given, but much later):
One Mirror “investigator” had more than just an idea to go on.
The Tamam Shud, he said, was more than just a page torn from a book.
It was the usual signature of a man who had twice stood trial for murder.
Every big baccarat player in post-war Melbourne knew who “Tamam Shud” was.
He was the enforcer!
In the hey day of a man called “Twist” he said and “Freddie The Frog” Harrison – himself executed – “Tamam Shud” was known and in [the] nether world of sly grog and illegal baccarat, feared.
Obviously the dead man had fallen afoul of the underworld and had been executed.
In fact, Melbourne detectives had investigated the same theory years before.
But this apparently promising lead had been a dead end.
Note that “Twist” (Jack Eric Twist) and Freddie “The Frog” Harrison (who was killed in 1959) were two of the five people who made up “The Combine”, controlling much of the organized crime in Melbourne in the years following WW2, via the Federated Ship Painters’ and Dockers’ Union. The others were Harold Nugent, Norman Bradshaw (AKA “Cornelius”), and Joseph Patrick “Joey” Turner (AKA “Monash”).
The Lonsdale Street Baccarat School
There’s a nice 1947 introduction to Melbourne’s gambling scene here.
Interestingly, the baccarat school on Lonsdale Street (a part of Melbourne long associated with brothels) was raided and shut down two weeks after the Somerton Man’s death. An article in the Melbourne Argus dated 16th December 1948 runs:
BACCARAT DENS BROKEN, POLICE CLAIM
Big city school closed
WITH the closing of a notorious school in Lonsdale street, city, on Tuesday night, gaming police claim they have at last broken the baccarat racket.
The school was the second last of the big games which yielded promoters thousands of pounds in the last five years.
Police say that the only other school of any consequence is operating at Elwood. They are confident this will be closed in the near future.
On Tuesday night the gaming squad served a man in Lonsdale st with papers informing him that his premises have been declared a common gaming house.
Previously, other premises in Lonsdale st and also in Swanston st, city, were also “declared.”ENRICHED CRIMINALS
Sergeant A. Biddington, gaming police chief, said yesterday that the fight to beat the racket had been long and hard.
There were 14 schools in Melbourne two and a half years ago, all run by desperate characters. Huge sums changed hands nightly, enriching many well-known criminals.
In the last 12 months, he said, baccarat schools were raided nightly at two-hourly intervals.
Not only were the “bosses” upset but players, many of them respectable citizens and inveterate gamblers, became frightened.
The result was that attendances dwindled and some schools closed down for lack of patrons.“COCKATOOS” BUSY
Sgt Biddington explained that it was difficult to obtain evidence against the schools. Usually they were on the top floors of buildings, and ‘cockatoos’ were able to give a warning before police ascended stairs and made a raid.
Sgt Biddington added that by closing the baccarat dens, police will break up some of the city’s worst consorting spots for criminals.
Incidentally, the (brief, and probably not 100% truthful) memoirs of Melbourne baccarat school owner Robert Walker that ran in the Melbourne Argus in 1954 is on Trove, e.g. here. In another installment, Walker describes entering the Lonsdale Street baccalat school, on his way to see The Gambler:
To get to the club in Lonsdale st., you walk up three flights of stone steps and knock on a big fireproof steel door.
I did that, and a small trapdoor was opened.
A few minutes after doing this that day, Walker got shot in the leg by the doorman (though he lived to tell the tale). But that’s another story.
Where To From Here?
If the Somerton Man was (as was claimed) associated with the Lonsdale Street baccarat school around 1945 or so, it should be possible to piece together a list of names associated with it from the Police Gazettes and newspaper articles of the day, and then rule out all those who lived past 1st December 1948, or died before then. It might well be that if we can follow this through to its logical conclusion, we would find ourselves with a very short list of names indeed – maybe three or four. What will we then find?
As always, there’s a good chance that this will be yet another Somerton Man-style dead end, a “big fireproof steel door” at the top of the stairs that we cannot get through. But whatever the Somerton Man’s reason for being in Adelaide on the day he died, perhaps this thread offers us a glimpse not of what he was doing, but of the life he was living.
For he was a real person, living his own life in his own way, even if that isn’t how we choose to live our own lives, and that’s something that tends to get marginalized: while people who treat him purely as a historical puzzle to be solved or to give them ‘closure’ in some sense aren’t looking to remember him for what he was, but for what resolving the questions around him can do for them now. Today, though, I simply want to remember the Somerton Man, and to try to imagine (however imperfectly) the life he lived and lost.
I’ve seen the gambling connection mentioned often (sometimes in stuff dating all the way back – newspaper articles etc) but never really followed through on….
That said…
There is only circumstantial evidence he was in the station that morning, and even less that he came in on a train. If he did, there were 9 trains that arrived that morning before 11AM (Melbourne and Broken Hill at 9:15 and 9:17 being the only ones from interstate). The others came from Bowmans (near Port Wakefield, North and a little West of Adelaide), Robertstown (near Burra, North of Adelaide), Willunga (past Noarlunga – Down the coast to the South of Adelaide), 2 from Angaston (past Gawler, North of Adelaide ), Mount Pleasant (East of Adelaide) and one simply refered to as South-East (which is vague and could describe Murray Bridge/Tailem Bend, but I think more like is from the Coorong (eg Kingston SE – I’ll have to dig out my SAR map and see if something actually refers to a South Eastern line) .
I think some of those locations have come up in other people’s research – hardly surprising, given they cover a fair span of the state, I suppose…
One of the most frustrating things about this case, is that individually every piece of evidence looks quite telling, yet it’s very hard to find a narrative that can combine them all together (without invariably having to decide that some evidence was planted, or mis-reported or somehow explain an inconvenience away). In fact, many solutions presented require us to believe that key players were bi-polar – eg that someone was simultaneously smart enough to try to mask some element of the story, and yet dumb enough to leave obvious pointers elsewhere (The TS, the Rubaiyat and the ‘Code’ are particularly problematic to explain satisfactorily – there’s a level of meticulousness coupled with incredible sloppiness that’s hard to get past).
DA’s site has a page of ‘List of things often misreported about SM’ and another ‘List of things we know about SM’. I often feel the former should contain almost every element of the case, and the latter should be a short list.
Isn’t it odd, that a man who was otherwise destitute had found himself some upmarket ciggies? Despite his poverty, he’d also managed to hold onto a lighter, IIRC (alothough the absence of lighter fluid suggests that’s sentimental – and its presence doesn’t disprove his poorness).
It’s interesting that the suit coat he was wearing and the one in the suitcase were slightly different sizes – as were his shoes vs the slippers (with the slippers being smaller). From memory, there was mention that the dressing gown may have been smaller than the suit coat too (but I’d have to double check that), and at least one of the shirts still had labels (but not name tags) and appeared ‘new…it hasn’t been washed many times’).
So: What do we know? I think for the most part we can trust reports on the physical appearance, the clothes, and the autopsy findings. I reluctantly concede that the suitcase does appear linked to the clothes SM was wearing – but I’m not ready to agree it was SM’s suitcase, or that he was the person who left it in the station that morning.
Going with your omerta supposition, that only really excludes people who knew him (and gives an interesting angle re magnoson, perhaps) – but we sort of have to consider nobody even came forward to see they’d seen him. The ticket clerk (other people at the station, the guard who punched his ticket) , the bus conductor (the bus driver, the 40 or so pax on the bus), people at the beach (ok, we have 3 there, perhaps – although even they are inconclusive), people at shops around Glenelg/Somerton/Brighton. It is quite amazing (especially if believe the traditional narrative that starts on a train arriving into Adelaide, and follows a bus up the Anzac Highway) that he can pass through so invisibly. Many came forward proposing an identity, but there doesn’t seem any record of people coming forward to say “Holy sh!t, I sat next to him on the bus”.
Granted, people have relatively few ‘direct connections’ (I think I read somewhere for intelligent primates that’s somewhere around 50 (by direct connection, I mean we care about our family, but on a personal level we don’t really consider the person who delivers our mail as existing), but it seems odd that nobody would come forward – not even any cranks who want some attention (I guess it’s possible people did, but it was never made public).
It quickly becomes obvious why the conspiracy theories are so attractive – here is a guy who has gone totally unnoticed in a largish (I think Adelaide was still 3rd largest city in Aus back then) city and ended up dead on the beach. Perhaps we could learn from Boxall in all our speculation: “It’s…quite a melodramatic thesis, isn’t it?”
Nick: how did he light the cigarette found partly smoked and wedged under his chin?
– and how did he manage to change his trousers after Strapps and girlfriend departed the scene?
milongal: SM probably looked entirely normal and unremarkable, no hawaiian shirt or fruitbowl-shaped headwear, so would probably have gone unnoticed by almost all the bus and train passengers. The connections I’m talking about would be the people who worked with him on a day to day basis, whatever that work was (legal or otherwise). Everyone operates in a web of connections, that’s just how life is: all I’m suggesting – and this isn’t a Soviet uranium spy type of conspiracy – that the people in his particular web may have had a good practical reason to want to say nothing.
Pete: ah, but you already have your own coterie of commenters to troll with questions like these, so why not see what patellar reflexes you can gain from them rather than from me? Thanks! 🙂
That’s one way of dodging the questions … and one that does your reputation as a researcher more harm than good. But it is to be expected.
pb: even so, if the same exchange of comments serves to strengthen the picture of you as a troll, perhaps it was all worthwhile.
They are two simple questions that are pertinent to the case …. yet you seem to regard asking of them as a trolling exercise.
Why?
Neil Day and pal Horrie, both apprentice jockeys, were first to see SM2?, possibly as early as 5am on 1/12/48. When they returned to the scene around 5.40am?, our dead SM was observed, ever so clearly, sprawled on his back, staring up to the heavens, not with his back to the wall as most others contend, (who propped him up Moss or Strangway?) and looking resplendent in his brown suit. Jack Lyons came by soon after, ‘with his mate from the previous evening?‘ and backed up Neil’s version precisely in a post inquest statement. Of most interest is the confirmtion that it was the jockeys who at some stage,saw a man resembling Peteb’s ‘bookmarker’ walking away ‘from the scene?’ along the beach…It seems that we still have a goodly number of live ones out there, from whom we might gain substantial new leads, rather than having to rely upon fanciful and misleading yarn spinners’like moi, for ideas (not you macka).
There have been many other cases where bodies are found and never identified. What elements make this case so interesting? The Rubaiyat? The clothing labels? The contents of the suitcase? Think of this as a poll.
I am suddenly reminded of the line from Murder on the Orient Express where Poirot says, “Has it occurred to you, there are too many clues in this compartment?”
Nick: I think you might concede the point that anyone trolling my posts, is not likely to aquire anything much worth their while. You’ll also have picked up on the fact that there doesn’t seem to be too much else on offer over this way of late that could be usefully converted. I’d feel quite honoured by your trollery accusations, if they should per chance, pertain to the fraudulent conversion of my intellectual output. Alas I’m almost certain that Peteb’s motives are merely for spite and nothing whatever to do with my beautiful mind.
pb: what trolls do is troll people for a response, which is what you’re doing now, either inadvertantly or deliberately. And it’s getting a bit boring, sorry. 🙁
What can I say but good luck in deciphering the indecipherable Voynich Manuscript when you don’t know the difference between a troll and a comment in your own language.
Pete: well, at least you left not by trolling but with a genuine comment, albeit a sarcastic, disrespectful and incorrect one. So maybe there are reasons to be optimistic here.
I’m working on a theory that SM was a travelling abortionist. Abortion was illegal at the time. SM could have found out that Jestyn was having an affair with a married man and blackmailed her into giving him names and addresses of women who were desperate to abort, who she would meet in the course of her work.
Some of the code’s first lines begin with what looks like M overwritten with W. This could be SM’s symbol for Married Woman. The final line begins with what is possibly U, not I, for Unmarried.
MLIAOI: perhaps the L is the pound symbol and the IAOI is a code for the pounds, shillings and pence amount that was his fee. This entry is struck through.
MLIABO: this entry is similar but above it are two lines that meet at a point with an x. This may signify that SM had to insert stitches (the x) in a cut (the lines). The net result of all this might be that SM struck through his original fee and increased it because of the stitches, or maybe he just forgot about the stitches when first writing this up and remembered later.
A hotel employee reported seeing a hypodermic syringe, perhaps indicating that SM was a medical man. I would be interested to know whether the thread found in his possessions was suitable for surgery, or could be used for that purpose.
Perhaps at some point Jestyn refused to be blackmailed any more, so SM went to her house to threaten her. Possibly she had confided in her old friend Boxall, who she knew had done dirty tricks during the war, and he got involved.
VM minnow (self asserted): Hey Kerrie, we’re almost done with the translation, just waiting for you to get over to Rene’s blog for your prize. Prester John Thomas was found to be the tenth century hoaxter and your Prosper George Thomson entry at just one millenium out, was judged nearest the spin. Voynicheerio.
Nick: There you go, almost as if we’re back to the beginning. I’m going to put more effort into picking up the threads of my sadly neglected Mebin nit picker, whom I effectionately still have filed as ‘the last of the brown striped Vandemonians’ from memory. His likely killer’s well documented SM like traits of putting good smokes in a shitty packet, which was not well received, still gives me goose bumps, as was his detestation for queers. My old Cockatoo was not known for his showjumping acumen, so I’ll need to give more thought to an alternate means of aquiring his tan. Then again your helpful suggestion of bare legged equestrian pursuits, would be more prone to severe chafing, as opposed to the desired foot to gonads tan, to the best of my knowledge and recollections.
Disrespect … cast your mind back to a thread on Voynich Ninja, where you behaved irregularly after one of the moderator’s positive comments about an example of Gordon Cramer’s tiny writing.
You used code to express your disrespect. So back at you old boy.
You NP, CKMA.
Peter bowes: if that’s genuinely the worst thing you can dredge up to bait me with, things must be pretty bad in Bowes Central. Sounds to me like you need a holiday, possibly even a few days by the sea. I do know of a certain beach near Adelaide the locals love to promenade past, you can leave your suitcase in the station… 😉
Of course, “I’ve heard it’s to die for“. Before anyone else gets tempted to say it.
Yes,well … but how did our man manage to change his trousers after Strapp’s and Neill moved away ? That is your stated position …. same man different duds. Remember?
Please explain.
Peter bowes: asking someone to justify a position they’ve never themselves put forward is boring. Next!
Bneil: Sounds like a fairly bloodthirsty operation, but you’ve obviously given it considerable thought. The Barbour cotton thread company are thankfully still in operation and might allow you to ascertain suitability of their products for internal womens proceedures. Though with pure Irish linen thread, I can’t envision complications. (as opposed to the substandard Canadian army issue). Same goes for Johnson Bros. scissors (Canadian is out) and only the very best of British will suffice, such as SM’s cutdown sheathed Sheffield table service EP&NS b&b knife. I do seem to recall a similar scheme being discussed by a certain Ken, Matt or perhaps one other most intuitive poster over on BS blog who didn’t respond to my request for more detail. if you have the time to check our thread (a pun) index list you might find some real common grounding. Good luck in your quest and don’t forget to advise progress.
Who’s bored?
Quote: Nick Pelling. November 12th. Tomsbytwo.com.
“Surely you mean “the trousers seen in the evening by a single witness would appear to be different to the trousers the dead man was found wearing in the morning”?
If that’s correct – and it’s only a single witness, after all – the man could well be the same, even if the two pairs of trousers were different …. ”
Love it.
Nick: Ah yes, I recall the brave British Tommy’s remark on landing at Suvla in April ‘15. “I came here to die” and a retort from the bronzed Aussie Anzac; “Fair go cobber, I came here yesterdie”….
pete bowes: just for the sake of clarity – and after your 20th dull attempt at trolling an answer out of me – I have been saying for years and years that the lividity of the body did not fit any timeline where the man died on the beach. So you’re spending your time trying to troll me about a scenario I’ve never put forward.
Sorry, but you’re really boring the pants off me. Which may well have happened to the Somerton Man too.
Nick: Hey man, don’t be a party pooper, it’s not time for Kerrie’s nigh nighs yet. As for SM he’s doing turns in old Elliotts custom shroud, first time in years. The Lividity thing is flawed, as if both of you best buddies hadn’t noticed and now everthings back to square one. Not to mention the striped morning duds that old Len Brown has placed on the table right alongside the similarly striped matching feather stitched jacket. See you on the flipside for more frivolity Kez!….
John sanders, thank you for acknowledging my post. Another line of thought is that stencilling equipment was used to restore bus company names during repainting of buses, something that Boxall might have been able to shed light on, given that he was working at Randwick bus depot.
There’s something about this case that looks like a setup, a sting, that was meant to frighten someone but went wrong.
@NP: Granted he may have been quite ordinary and blended in, but…
1) Everyone seems to have agreed he was dressed for a cooler climate, and if he’s leaving the city after 11 it’s getting into the warmest part of the day when such clothes must have stood out if it was so unusual (of course, one might posit that 22C is not actually all that warm – it was the following day that got warmer).
2) Many years ago when I was working on the buses, we’d occasionally get calls over the radio to look out for a missing person. Invariably (ok, not invariably, but more often than not), a snoopy….I mean ‘helpful’ passenger listening to my radio would engage conversation and insist they may have seen them (usually not even remotely near where they were being searched for, and usually IMO probably someone entirely different). I would expect lots of people would claim to have seen him – quite often even if they hadn’t. Of course we can explain some of that away because just because the newspapers don’t mention such furphys doesn’t mean they weren’t happening….
Personally I suspect the police pictures are part of the problem. The documentation around them does sort of suggest they’re pictures not photos (or modified photos, if you like). The fact that they’re post autopsy also means that there’s potentially changes in the look (compare them with Gordon’s gruesomer pics). Even the description of the body by first attenders (I can’t remember if it was Lyons, Moss or someone else) talk about the hair being slicked back – so even ignoring changes post-mortem and post autopsy we still have a picture that’s not really representative of how he would have appeared on his final day.
@JS: may have found the body as early as 5AM – Wasn’t high tide on the 5AM side of 4::30 that morning? Wouldn’t be much beach for the horsies there, unless they like to splash around a bit….
milongal: The tide is a bitch to fathom, we both have had this problem for yonks. Young Neil Day, now 86 maintains that he and his mate Horrie first saw the body as they rode past from Glenelg. They did not stop, thinking like others that the fellow was sleeping (quite common says Neil) after taking their mounts on the excercise run 2 miles through to Brighton, they returned and made the grim discovery. I was thinking that they came along the roadway above, but that can’t be right. So our previously held beliefs on the likely highwater mark must be out of kilter. Or perhaps the lads did take the nags through water up to the fetlocks which is certainly well recommended for conditioning…I don’t like to mention this but in a new Engish doco, which I must check again, it seems to suggest that when the boys first saw SM ‘sleeping‘, he was wearing a greatcoat, as opposed to having seen a greatcoated fellow walking away from the area.
Apologies for boring you Nick Pelling, but all I’m doing is following your example with the VM where you and your colleagues take a great deal of time and discussion to come to a point of agreement about the smallest detail in the manuscript. A glyph, a hanging gallows, a page number, a rosette, a swallow tail, a this or that ….. you all spend years of work, thousands of hours then write hundreds of thousands of words in the search for some clarity.
This is commendable work, a grand chase, one worthy of your undoubted intellect, and the reason for your stellar reputation as a researcher. Hats off.
But, you see, I’m doing the same thing with your Somerton Man manuscript. Examining everything in detail.
For instance:
We were discussing the fact on Tomsbytwo that the body seen alive in the evening was wearing different trousers to the body found dead in the morning. Rather a banal point of discussion I admit, nevertheless the above (20?) exchanges demonstrate what the honest toiler is up against when he ventures into foreign territory with an unpopular fact.
May I quote part of your response again?
12 November 2018.
“If that’s correct (Strapp’s sighting of the man’s striped trousers) – and it’s only a single witness, after all ….. “
I read it as – IF that’s correct – and it’s ONLY a SINGLE witness, AFTER ALL ….
… and realised you are on the negative even when it comes to sworn statements and eye-witness accounts.
That this blind-eyed attitude could come from such a noted researcher confounds me.
“If that’s correct (Strapp’s sighting of the man’s striped trousers) – and it’s only a single witness, after all ….. “
I read it as – IF that’s correct – and it’s ONLY a SINGLE witness, AFTER ALL ….
… and realised Nick’s on the negative even when it comes to sworn statements and eye-witness accounts. That this blind-eyed attitude could come from such a noted researcher confounds me.
Bneil: On the buses, is yet another theory that has been discussed at some length on this site quite recently, although the background information came from some very fine work done by Clive over at TS/BS. You can find relevent information by researching back issues re Walter Thomas Keane of Tempe NSW and his post war employment with the Pioneer bus Company based in country Victoria. He had a similar working background to Alf Boxall and almost certainly would have had grounding in bus body decoration involving template stencilling and the like.
Peteb: I guess you didn’t bother to check on the striped folded strides that Len Brown placed beside the folded Striped jacket. Problem is that Len unfolded the coat but not the Stamina, so Stuey only got to see the inner lining and a glimpse of the gey pin striped shoulder. Perhaps we can get Gordon to get his big loupe out and tell us, once and for-all about the Staminas. Should it be that the stripes are there, obla di obla da, life goes on. If not, then you’ll be a bigger hero than Misca’s Sir John Ruffles. And it’s still apparently not too late to go back to Gordon Strapps (he’s only 88), for a rehash of his SWORN statement, though I’d advise as a courtesy, that a formal caution would be in order as a buffer against possible contempt proceedings.
Pete: when I write about Internet researchers sieving the fine slurry of evidence looking for That One Golden Nugget That Turns What We Know On Its Head, it is indeed with just about all cipher mysteries in mind. And yes, the striped trousers thing is interesting.
But given that I don’t think there’s any good reason to think the Somerton Man died on the beach, it’s not obviously a new type of interesting.
Similarly, if he didn’t die on Somerton Beach, then the whole cigarette thing becomes part of the whole staging. The absence of vomit, the lack of a hat, lots becomes consistent, which is perhaps a sign of some small progress.
But in the end, the stripes form one detail in one witness statement, and so we must remain cautious.
Nick & Pete: I take it that, with regard to SM’s lividity, you would both be unified in flatly rejecting, a some light wave action undermining of the beach sand as being a possible attributing factor. If you use his head’s raised post mortem position as support for nay saying, I’ll remind you that all you’d have to back you up, is a single unsupported eye witness Nick. As for you Pete, you really need not be too concerned, as the lividity should not effect your later evening replacement proposition at all. That is, if you’re happy to accept that SM2 was still living when dropped off at the beach, flat on his back and unsupported before 2am.
@JS: I could believe the horses being in the water ankle-deep.
“, thinking like others that the fellow was sleeping (*quite common* says Neil) ”
Perhaps we should consider whether it was quite common to see people sleeping at the beach, or whether it was quite common to see people sleeping _beside the steps to the crippled childrens home_
It does potentially help the ‘man before wasn’t the body after’ type idea….
Somerton to Brighton (I’m assuming, perhaps naively that the Jetty is the turnaround point) is no big distance, and you shouldn’t think it would take a long time on horseback (even if you’re not racing there). And unlike cyclists, I shouldn’t have thought they’d stop for a coffee in their getup once they reached Brighton…
So how much time elapsed between Heading South and returning North? And why did the body suddenyl warrant further inspection if they originally thought it was someone sleeping? Is it perhaps in the brighter daylight things looked more amiss, or something else?
Lyons = Cigarette behind ear
PC Moss = Cigarette (portion) right collar of coat, held in position by cheek’
Does this imply the body had been moved between the time Lyons saw it with the horsies, and he returned with Moss – or is this just bad memories from one or other of them?
milongal: All those points and queries are in need of proper analytical deliberation. Or we can make it easy on ourselves if we can get Clive or thedude747 to delve further into our new witnesses, who thankfully still seems to have all his marbles. As for the status of the smoked or not smoked cigarette; Jack Lyons had nothing to gain by lying, whereas Moss had everything, including his re arrangement of the body to suit the crime. Namely, “Evidence at the death scene points to death by suicide in my experienced opinion Your Honour”.
Peteb: Perhaps you have it somewhere in the white side of your heart, to take our old teetotal mate aside and whisper a few home truths into his otic cavity, nominally relating to spymaster Pavel Fedosimov’s distinctly un Somerton Man like physical and facial features, which no amount of lens enhancement can ever overcome period.
@JS: wasn’t so much suggesting either was lying, but more suggesting that between Lyon first seeing it (and heading home for the phone) and Moss seeing it, it my have been moved/tampered with, causing a spliff behind the ear to fall onto the cheek/collar.
NB: I don’t follow PeeBee’s blog, so can’t comment on the other, so perhaps I misunderstand your last, but am very close to certain that the Fedo in the 60s is the Fedo from the early 40s (and am reasonably happy with my photo of a random who I claim to be him).
Yesterday, sunset in Adelaide was 8:17 (ie 7:17 non-Daylight time) which is 4 minutes later than 30 Nov 1948. According to the pedantic definitions (to do with the angle of the sun past the horizon), civil twilight was until 8:46, Nautical until 9:23 and Astronomical until 10:02.
I asked some South Australian friends to monitor darkness at different times. To put things into perspective, they were spread from Victor Harbor to Nurioopta, with 3 in the metropolitan area, as it happens all South of the city, but none further West than Morphett Vale (not to be confused with Morphetville).
At 8:17 all agreed it was still quite light, colours were easily distinguishable to a reasonable distance (read “past the back fence”).
At 8:37 all agreed it wasn’t yet dark, it was harder to make our shapes in the shadows, and the colours they could see were dulled, but identifiable
By 8:50 some were saying it was noticeably dark, and they might struggle to identify someone at a distance of 20m, but not 10m – but they would see them either way. Visibility was better facing East (ie setting sun behind you) than West (shadows making things a lot darker)
At 8:52 one reported that stars are out, but he was seeing the last lights of day (at 9:03 he reported ‘dark’). Interestingly, he was the closest to a beach, but the beach faced South not West (Victor Harbor) so hard to draw too many conclusions.
Even after dark, most were confident (and this is very speculative, of course) that they would be able to identify an unusual/unexpected mass as a body, provided it wasn’t in shadow. All also agreed that even fairly dim light sources started to have a massive impact on shadows and therefore visibility.
I had a chat to some of these people afterward, and we agreed that on a West-facing beach (ie closer to the setting sun and not surrounded by fences and buildings) the visibility might last 5 minutes longer (maybe more, but we were all comfortable with 5).
We also agreed (much like the motorists who forget to put their lights on) that if you’re sitting outside as it gets dark, your eyes are far better adjusted and you have reasonable visibility for longer – but that wouldn’t necessarily make colour or faces more identifiable.
So, IMO, on that night in Somerton:
– very close to 8PM would have been the last someone could reliably identify colour
– SM would have been visible/noticeable to people on the beach a bit after that (especially if they were there as it got dark), unless a streetlight was sufficiently close to cast a shadow of the seawall or steps
– Lyons claim of not being close enough to identify given the light seems strange (and still at odds with his assertion that he would have seen a cigarette if there were one because it was still light) (I find Lyon’s account extraordinary, not least because he claims the closest he saw SM from was 15/20 yards, and I simply don’t think the beach is that wide there….)). For what it’s worth, at inquest Lyons makes no mention of time at inquest, but talks about ‘evening’ and ‘fairly light’. That seems reasonably consistent with 7:30, I suppose – and I guess we don’t know what he would have said in interview with police at the time (or do we?).
I don’t think any of the witnesses who came forward would have had any trouble seeing SM, although I do wonder about their reliability (as with any witness) – Olive and Gordon’s accounts are quite different, when you consider both of them would have been in the same spot. Presumably she saw the man at the top of the stair when they were snogging, which is why Gordon didn’t see him either.
If I had to order the witnesses for perceived reliability, I think I’d say Olive (who seems to have noticed people on the beach etc – although doesn’t mention the Mozzies), Gordon (who seems to have noticed some specifics about the body and the mozzies, even if Olive dismisses him as not giving a hoot) and then Lyons (who should have been in the best position to see, even stopped to observe, but can still only offer vague detail) – but I feel the investigators took the exact opposite order (Cleland didn’t have any questions for Olive at inquest).
Strapps’ account is interesting, because it seems largely speculative:
“That night I did make a remark to my girlfriend that as there were mosquitoes there he must have been dead to the world in not noticing them”
“That night…” – sounds like they discussed it retrospectively
“…my girlfriend…” – is it safe to assume he’s talking about Olive (he refers to her as Miss Neill elsewhere)
“…as there were mosquitoes…” – to me this implies in the area, not specifically near the body
“….must’ve been dead to the world not noticing them” – sort of as per the previous, if he specifically saw them around his face, I would have expected that sentence to finish with something like “…noticing them *on his face*”
Similarly, much of his testimony is “…I thought/think…” – and it comes across that he’s retelling the story as he feels it happened, rather than as he saw it…
Easy Reader Version: Shouldn’t have been any problem with the lighting from the witnesses’ perspectives…
Milongal : There are addmitedly a number of subtle inconsistencies in the many press reports of John Lyon’s post inquest interviews, including one hum dinger where his recall is of having first spotted SM1 as he descended the concrete steps alone. Initially sure that the man was dead, then realising this wasn’t the case when the ‘body’ raised it’s hand to flick ash of a smoke,…How he and friend Arthur Leer (another time alone) approached the two horsemen and saw SM2 and,…recognised him as the man he had seen the night before, except that the body was not lying against the wall, but lying flat on it’s back with one leg crossed over the other & …two jockeys standing by the body lying on the sand. There are similar supportive a.m. body positioning quotes which go against all our CM oft touted mainstream beliefs, from others including the jockey boys, Neil Day and his mate Horrie, which post date the only too readily quoted SM Bible according to “St.” Feltus….One can’t help but have noticed that, the Coroner, in his final analysis, upheld a Police version of the facts, rejecting as really not altogether reliable, all contrary views.
Milongal: Over the years, there seems to have been an awful lot of license taken with regard to things like clouds of swarming buzzing, mosquitos around his head etc.,which are in stark contrast of what we understand to be numbers of lesser intensity, made by the kids for example. Most of the false flagging can of course be directly attributed to the unfortunate alleged quotes from so called authoritive sources, that are now inseperable from the facts. It is much the pitty that we should now have to disregard most quoted information for fear of contamination. Details of which had they been varifiable, might otherwise serve to shed light on such detail, as to how aware, for instance, was SM1 of his immediate surroundings, if at all.
Problem with the way these non dedicated sites are set up, is that each post is only good for the period that it remains in the recent post index. I’m sure that in the past seven years of accumulated SM thoughts contained within the various threads (mostly unrelated), somewhere within lies a name for SM and or simple solution to other facets of the mystery, in one form or another. If someone has a way to make it easier for cross reference, please tell our tabulator how this might be achieved.
milongal: Some days ago, I made mention of how Olive and Gordon came forward on the very day of SM’s finding, after hearing something in the media. I was only quoting what I read, of course and it may or may not have come about like that. on reflection, I’d say not…What did the kids have to say that was likely to have been useful to the police, apart from seeing the unidentifiable half of a body in such and such a place at such and such a time; In effect nothing, so why bother at all. Perhaps their very vague description in itself might have been considered invaluale to Det. Strangway, if a cover of some detail was being put into effect. My suspicion now leads me to the view that the pair may not have come forward of their own volition at all. I’m thinking that young Olive saw something very important indeed from a police perspective. A something which needed watering down to the point of being discounted, in her coronial inquest testimony. When spoken to by the press hounds, she had described a craggy featured? man of about fifty who was not so tall, attired in navy suit with a grey hat, who she observed staring down upon the beach scene from the seawall railing. I have suggested that the man was likely to have been a police officer which I’ll standby and pics of our Constable Moss, engaged in beach rescue duties a year or so later are not at all inconsistent with Olive Neill’s quoted description…..Give it as much thought as you dare and don’t feel obliged to keep counsel, should you feel that my contention is, as usual, ludicrous.
Having the two unidentfied Melbourne baccarat players coming foward at a time co-inciding with a spate of police arrests connected with ‘common gaming house’ offences might well have been fortituous. I’m not for a second a nay sayer; infact their coming forward as informants, might well have suggested a deal for dropping charges against them was on the cards. So yeah I think the case may once have had legs; How far it was taken by the Leane team and what’s in it for us is a different game. I’ll try to think up some nutty idea which might turn up an high card and thank goodness for once, we’re all out of aces.
john sanders: two jokers in the standard deck, right?
Nick: Most observant. In fact my two jokers, Arno Kohler and Felix Slawinski (remember Thadee) arrived in Oz just before the war to work with Tivoli Curcuit in Melbourne. After their boss Frank Neil was killed in 1940, they started working for Wirth’s Circus and travelled extensively until 1947 as performers. I’ve pulled their papers for all to see so if you care to peruse them, you will surely note how both their identities appear to have been stolen. In poor felix’s case, the perp even had the audacity to sign her own name when collecting the Nat. Cert. Teresa Cordera arrived in ‘37 and gave a Nth Qld. address which connects with a person of the same surname associaed with the ‘black hand’ extortion mob of the early thirties. In 1954 the new Arno and Felix arrived in Adelaide together from London, though the former, by then had a wife and child in tow. What happened to them after Goodwood is beyond my limited means to unravel completely, apart from some Sydney electoral rolls for Felix in ’77/80 with a Melb. death notice in 79, then a Sydney burial record for Arno in ’82 (Lutheran). Make of all this as you will, I can’t help too much, and please take no notice of the general photographic likeness of both to SM eg. Arno’s teeth and Felix’s broad shouders. I’m sad to report that whilst my fellows, were likely to have been victims of the Melbourne Market mob, I can’t see any likely connection to the demise of our old mate SM…. PS. Don’t despare, all is now moving forward quite nicely and the lads are not likely to be missed at all.
Nick: The two jokers that you so elequently refer to, can only be the cavum and cymba, mainstays of our well studied concha ear configuration, which sadly gets little attention these days. Right between these two interesting whatsits is a unique distinctive notch, but only in SM’s case in my iwn opinion. Consisting of two horizontally opposed V cutouts between both ears, I must have searched for them on hundreds of soldiers, airmen, sailors, seamen deserters and alien arrivals to Australia in the past two years. I’m yet to see anything that matches our man, even remotely and that includes Robin, Charles, Xlamb’s imposter and other unlikely nominees including old Fed…..If anyone is inclined to do as I have done, and can come up with an ear notch quite like that, I’d say they’d have grabbed the pool, so to speak.
john sanders: I ‘ear ya, loud and cl’ear. 😉
@JS: having recently read the inquest papers (as they appear in the Doco notes), I satisfied myself that Olive and Gordon appeared the following day (of course, now I can’t find the exact reference). But it does raise an interesting thought. On the first of December, this was just a mundane John Doe. It made a small article on the front page of the paper, but it wasn’t calling for witnesses or suggesting anything other than someone died.
Aside from the age of Strapps and Neill (which sort of begs a question about whether they would read the paper – but different times, I suppose), it wasn’t the sort of news that would have been on the wireless “We interrupt this broadcast…”
So did they come forward (and in that case why), or were they sought out?
milongal: It seems to me that Harry Strangway was only interested in the accounts of witnesses who didn’t have anything to say, that would be in conflict with the rather straightforward ‘no suspicious circumstances‘ explanation . One beach witness, in old John Lyons, was a no brainer, in that the local blind jeweller could be used to adequately cover both SM of the evening as well as next morning. No need to worry about dragging others like wife Helen, John’s mate Arthur or Neil and Horrace the jockey boys, in to complicate things. As for Gordon and Olive, they being of an unknown quantity, potentially troublesome, would have to be tracked down post haste, sort out any threat potential, then quickly put a lid on the case. Neither Harry nor Moss would have been aware that the Adelaide presshounds were seeing a good story emerging and were not in any hurry to shut up shop.
Peteb: Finally solved the striped duds enigma for you son. It seems that your reliance on staff turned out to be to be the problem. Back in ’16 your Gordon put a series of nice postcard snaps together for your gallery and in so doing he took a little licence. We’ll get straight to the seat of the problem, by first directing your attention to the caption titled ‘Leane and Littlemore’ which in fact stars Len Brown. On the right end of the table, folded next to the coat and tie, you may care, or not care to look closely at SM’s a.m. striped/flecked, dark brown trousers. I think your error was in mistaking another nice pic marked up as ‘SM’s Duds’, which are actually the pair of Marcos, which you have had problems with before. Another possibilty for your confusion lies with two more shots of plain brown trousers, which Flash kindly offered from his own extensive wardrobe to explain fob pockets. I hope you’ll now be satisfied with young Strapps p.m. strides and that we can all get on with the motley. PS. will you call the Advertiser/News and tell them it was all just a hint to remind them of year 70.
Someone recently floated the possibilty of utilising the ‘for and of the people’ provisions of the Sth. Aust. Govt. Freedom Fom ( sic) Information Act to obtain any uncatagorized Sapol files on the case, as I understanf thr intention to have been. In knowing or suspecting that Gerry probably secured all that was left ‘down in the place’ for his personal use, which he should have since passed on as a matter of courtesy, I don’t see the idea as being likely to bare anything more fruitful that lemon rinds…However, the idea was well intuititive enough. So now I’d like to propose along the lines of ‘If Egypt has no wheat, surely India has some’ ie. In the early days of SM, all the other states were cooperating with Sapol in various ways, especially Melbourne CIB who were all over it for that all important, missing persons identification phase of the investigation. I’d bet that Vic. Police indices still maintain old records of their part in the SM case and that they are likely to be accessable to the public after seventy years undisturbed. Perhaps a Melbourne based follower could put out feelers.
@JS: I’ve always wondered why there’s no mention of them horsie boys being interviewed or called as witnesses. As they definitely saw the actual body you would think that they would have more interesting thing to say than the speculation of Strapps and Neill. In the past I’ve sort of written it off as “they were on the beach when they shouldn’t have been and disappeared before the fuzz showed up”, but I’m surprised no effort was made to catch up with them (ditto for Lyons’ friend). And to some degree your cover-up story accounts for that.
(sort of) Re the FOI, I had a vague recollection that there was something potentially (or possibly directly) related in NAA that was due to be declassified at 70 years, but I can’t for the life of me find any reference to it….
Milongal: Why should Sapol have felt the need to take witness statements from the horsemen, Neill and Horrie; After all they were merely first on the scene, then after moving the body, took it upon themselves of securing the area until Constable Moss came riding in to take the reigns and let them gallop off into the purple sage. Everyting in the officer’s own statement seems designed to cover his own suspicious involvement and it must have been known, perhaps even partly orchestrated by case O.I.C. Detective Strangway. I’m thinking that, his allowing the chief witnesses to leave without even taking names of their steads, was only one reason for him having been demoted and sent to Coventry (Henley Beach) after the inquest. Note: Horse brands are traceable, much the same as motor cycle number plates; ask Gordon Strapps.
Milongal,
70 years sounds like it is a police gazette.
JS, I noted the following statement in a book (G**gle finds it easily):
“Detectives from the state of Victoria initially believed the man was from there because of the similarity of the laundry marks to those used by several dry-cleaning firms in Melbourne.”
Judging from this I think it is worth a FOI request to the Victorian police as you have suggested.
Milongal: I guess some would say that Neil and Horace, the jockey’s were let go, because they were thought to be apprentices and therefore probably minors. In the case of Neil Day, who Dereck claimed in 2015 to have been deceased, it would be true, as he was just sixteen; However, it appears that his pal Horace Patching was a fully fledged and successful jockey at thirty five. Adelaide Advertiser reported on 4/9/51 that a Horrace Patching 38, jockey, had been charged with drink driving. On the same day Dr. Graeme Robson also appeared on charges of stealing opiates.
Gordon: Swarming masses of female anopheles muskeetas; You can’t hardly miss em cause of their stripes, from ten yards or more. Believe me they can be a diItraction, twenty minutes before and twenty minutes after sunset, then same at dawn, far as I know. I doubt that young Strapps could have been deceived at 8pm, nor Strangway in the clear light of day. STRIPED duds in the evening, striped duds at daylight, mozzies or no mozzies. No ifs or buts!…
Gordon: On second thoughts I’ll go with the status quo and agree that swarms of angry mosquitoes, especially with the onshore breeze, are not a good bet. Let’s not forget that the kids were not to be knowing which way the inquest was likely to go and so their possibly prompted mosquito story, in association with ‘dead to the world’, would be seen as a not commital assessment. Irrespective of whether the Coroner ruled that SM was dead or alive around 7.30pm. when they saw nothing much of consequence, so either way they’d find themselves in the clear.
Got to say, I increasingly think the mosquitoes are an embellishment (possibly accidental). I’ve had rants before about mozzies vs flies on Adelaide beaches (with in my experience the latter being far more like).
Gordon talks about a lot of mosquitoes being there, and about him (later that night) remarking that it was odd given the amount of mozzies there that SM didn’t seem bothered by them. It doesn’t directly mean that there were mozzies on or around SM, rather than they had noticed some (which could have been anywhere between the car and their love seat).
It also occurs to me (especially because it talks about “Lots of mozzies”), that it wasn’t mozzies at all, but some other bug (not sure what they’re called, but the ones I’m thinking of look like flying ants and hang around in largish distinct swarms – possibly grass fly/grass gnat?). Even at a distance of 10yards it would be possible that there’s a veritable shirtload hassling Gordon and Olive, and none whatsoever around SM.
If that were the case, it explains the mosquito comment, without it actually meaning anything relevant.
While we are extending birthday wishes to Len Brown, No 7 on the seven man SM Leane team, anyone know much about Alf Horsnell (1904-74), the big ex Army Provost Captain and former pre war S.A Mountie. He joined up with Gollan and Sutherland after Strangway was relieved in the first weeks, some time prior to Leon Leane’s secondment. I find him interesting to the extent that he might well have had seniority over all but old Scan and yet the only mention we get is with Dereck’s bust hand over ceremony. Also interesting is the fact that Horsnell was known to be hanging out in the very same island post war setting as our other Alf during ’45/’46, and from the work they were doing, should have had some close aquaintance. It might also have been through Horsnell’ military background that Sapol were able to track down ex lieutenant Boxall so quickly following Canney’s interview with Jess. One might suggest that it was perhaps the man himself who spoke with Alf at Randwick bus yard on 28th July ’49, and whilst I realise that S.A. police denied having a man there, that’s not what the interviewee related on several instances years later…Clive: MLIAOI = Meet Leane In Angas Office Incognito (for ROK handover). Also for Stripes and Flash to ponder over whilst figuring out why Rupert ‘Von’ Long and the Joint Allied Naval powers should wish any ill will upon our harmless SM.
The problem with your multitude of posts on the Somerton Man mystery, John Sanders, is that they are viewed by some with the same scepticism as those you post on the Voynich threads, a topic you could not possibly know anything about, but despite this handicap you flood the VM comments section with complete and utter tripe.
But being the gentlemen they are here, unlike myself, they show a little more charity with regard to your comic attempts to engage with the VM subject.
The pain you feel in your foot, old boy, is from shooting yourself in it.
peteb: Everyone has their foibles and limitations, yours being petulance and suspect antecedants, mine being an irrespressable will to win at all cost and the pluck to fight for same..My spelling could also do with improvement…Nick if you’re listening peteb’s last little gem has gone viral so don’t expect to get your boots shined this time around as other hosts may have brown nosing priority..
Perhaps someone, more observant than I has a theory about the relevance of exhibit nine in the ’49 inquest. So far as we know, there is no mention of it in any witness testimonial, nor does it have any obvious connection with the dead man’s listed belongings. Yet somehow it warranted explicit mention as ‘piece of paper’ without further description or explanation whence it first came to light or why it was deemed worthy of consideration and inclusion.
What were the other eight?
dude 737 max: Guess you must have missed the Somerton bus as it turned down your street to Mosely, right by 90A with a designated stop opposite it’s back track journey from the beach end turnabout near Miller Reserve. You can check it for youself on Fullers 1948 directory map 17 which the boss forgot to pass on to you. Speaking of his nibs he seems to have been court martialed not me “Colonel Sanders” as you witily assert, a third blunder in as many posts earns you the title ‘boofhead’ of the month and confinement to the arrivals terminal on Corona watch.
Exhibits one to eight, John, what were they?
Pb: The piece of paper marked exhibit 9 was one of eighteen Peteb and if you ask Derek nicely he’s likely to give you a peek at the rest, especially the one with the quarter box of matches that is connects with the rest of the body find parts.
What are the exhibits one through to eight, John ? … it’s not a difficult question. You either know them or you don’t.
Treat it as a challenge, son, something to help with your credibility.
Eight exhibits all numbered as submitted to the coroner – then recorded for the sake of posterity.
pb: How’s about I remind you of the last exhibit numbered 18 which needs mention seeing as you acredited to John Cleland on your own site a few days back. Of course its the paper with the two possible poisons handed up to the Coroner by Sir (Cedric) Stanton Hicks. The professor was the feller who perportedly found the TS slip and is included in exhibit 1 with the matches etc. from memory.
Nope, wrong answer. Again. Three strikes is all you get, little feller. If you don’t know the basics you shouldn’t be in the game.
Thanks for your patience, Nick, time for me to move on.
I only just twigged to having inadvertently used my ‘dusty’ by-line to Peteb’s ‘last post’ response in which I was going to be “comprehensively hammered” (so he gleefully predicted to his fawning deviates). Sorry for that and sorry for having shat on your parade Bonzo
Pb: Sorry couldn’t help with your challenge big feeler, but don’t go cutting and running just yet even though it be in your ‘bloodlines’. Now that a truce has been declared (by you), wondering where I might send that old RAAF confidential efficiency report from mid ’43 which seems a little harsh on the recipient for mine. Doubtless based on strong feelings over the shameful 453 Sqn. business in ’42 which must have still rankled with this brave Battle of Britain Ace and former Perpetual Trustees man Wing Commander Gordon Steege DSO DFC.
@JS: in about ’36 (I forget the date, but there’s a trove article about it somewhere) the St Leonards bus was changed so that every other bus went to Somerton (although from what I can tell, the line was still referred to as “St Leonards”). For a long time this had me suspecting that the bus SM was on actually went to Somerton (via Moseley St), however I’m increasingly believing that the bus he was on was the original St Leonards route (turning Right off the Anzac Highway about Adelphi St, rather than weaving to Somerton). I can’t remember whether I actually saw a timetable to back this up, but somebody’s (I think the conductor’s?) testimony seemed fairly certain not only that it was a St Leonards line/service, but that its actual destination was St Leonards.
Despite the existence of such a bus, I increasingly don’t think the bus he caught from the city went down Moseley St (although I suppose if the ticketing at the time allowed transfers (these days Adelaide allows 2 hour transfers on most tickets), it is possible that he got off anywhere along the route and hopped aboard a Somerton service). Of course, even within the ‘traditional’ narrative, the idea that he got off at the corner of Anzac Hwy and Adelphi St is pure speculation, and seems to assume that he knew that was the nearest point on the route to one (or all) of Glenelg/Mosely St/Somerton – and that, naturally is problematic insofar as it requires local knowledge or a good understanding of unfamiliar bus maps.
As I think I have pointed out before, though….it is entirely possible he was not alone on the journey – and perhaps even that’s why nobody remembers seeing him – because they’re trying to recall a person on their own rather than a pair of people (without too much imagination we could even believe that he was travelling with someone he met on the platform boarding the Henley Train who convinced him to go toward St Leonards instead, and they caught the bus. together.
If we believe that both tickets were his (ie not planted etc), then perhaps that goes some way to explaining why he never ended up on the Henley train – because he was intercepted (not necessarily in a suspicious way) by someone he knew….Maybe it even helps explain why there was no loose change with him – the few loose coins in the suitcase might be what’s left from his Henley fare, and his companion paid the subsequent bus fare.
Speculation only, your Honour.
Milongal .. what proof do we have that he arrived in Adelaide by train on November 30?
One last time and if people don’t see it my way than that’s fine. A bus of the same company did do the Somerton run on a turn about basis with it’s St. Leonards counterpart just as Ted Hall frrom the MTS explained in his deposition. My take from that is he had been given a run down on the apparent missed Henley Beach train scenario by police and asked to do a fit for the 7d bus ticket. This in turn led him to nominate the 11.15 St. Leonards service which tallied best in his opinion and has been taken as gospel by punters evers since. The ticket for both services and fare prices for full section were the same and I would offer that their was no way of telling which ticket was used for which outward journey. Apart from all that, it does stand to reason that Somerton was the preferred destination, bearing in mind that the body ended up there and not St. Leonards for Goodness sake and if that doesn’t make sense then nothing will. I just hope one never has to fly with the dude 747, they’d likely end up in at St. Peter’s gate much sooner that desired.
The only thing that really matters to me about the bus is the fact that he chose a bus over the faster and more direct option of the famous Bay tram.
It was so much part of the culture that an Adelaideian would be known to say “Im going to the bay for a bob” the Bay referring to Glenelg and a “bob” being a shilling. The Bay tram stops at Mosley square being at the end of Mosley st.
Choosing the hot slow uncomfortable bus which went to the end of Anzac highway would be classic mistake for a newcomer to town.
Anyone from Adelaide , or knew Adelaide knows that buses are to be avoided. We have never got it right, they are slow ,unreliable, uncomfortable.
The relevance is around whether Keane was familiar with Adelaide or not and choosing a bus suggests the latter.
NP .. if Keane was a nit picker, ie, a fellow of criminal habits, do you think it likely he would lodge his suitcase into the care of railway staff without locking it?
dude47: Nice to see that you have come in from the cold, and to say your piece in a much more convivial and ameniable setting. When it comes to sniping I’m just as guilty as the next person, so I do hope we can keep things respectful and on thread in future. To finish off the subject, I’m still undecided about Somerton man having gone anywhere by bus or other means of public tranpsort, including the much more convenient Glenelg tram which I can remember from my time in Adelaide in the sixties.
PB: I’ll leave the psychological speculation to others, if that’s ok with you. 🙂
Nick: You and others will have noted that over the years Peteb’s psychopathical (sick) speculations are all in the form of inquisitorals aimed at folks he believes will give him leeway to put out retalitory put downs in his own intimidatory style. It might work for him on his “I always get the last word” spiel on his own deceptive and disreputable column, but thankfully not here or on any of the sites that have justifiably sent him packing.
PB: I have always maintained we don’t know that he arrived that morning (at my most pedantic I’d even point out that we don’t even know he was in the railway station that morning, nor, the tickets within the clothes he was wearing were not necessarily his).
Certainly that he arrived by train is an assumption based on the fact that he is thought to have been there (mainly because of 1 HB ticket, 1 suitcase and 1 St Leonard’s bus that *might have* been boarded opposite.
I’m sure you can find posts of mine go back a couple of year already where I question why does he so carefully have kept a bus ticket that is of no use, a train ticket which is probably of no use, yet hasn’t kept the train ticket he arrived on (also of no use) nor any other tickets/receipts from that morning (e.g. the baths that everyone seems to assume he went to).
Of course, people’s response to that seems to be that “the ticket he arrived on was in his wallet which was stolen” (presumably you take more care of a train ticket because you hold onto it for longer and are more likely to need to show it to a railway official) but for me that’s difficult to resolve too – because why then would the HB ticket be thrust into his pocket rather than carefully stowed in his wallet too?
There’s a slight side question that comes from that….We know that he would have needed the train ticket to even get to the platform (this is why it was punched). Would he also have needed a ticket to get OFF the platform if he had arrived by train? Perhaps back then ticketing staff were less concerned with arrivals with no ticket than departures? Some might theorise that having come out of the gates and shown the ticket, he left it in the nearest bin (realising it is of no further use), but then why keep the HB ticket (which he could have left in the same nearby bin as he left the station)? Train tickets maybe need to be shown to staff on board (or after alighting), but surely bus tickets are generally checked only as you get on board?
In this picture of an Adelaide bus (admittedly from a later era) you can see in the rear stairwell a little orange bin (and that bins in an era where Adelaide was starting to increasingly move away from one-use tickets (Zone tickets allowed transfers, and certainly by the mid-1980s (possibly around ’86 with the opening of the O’bahn?) the ‘crouzet’ system was deployed allowing 10 trip passes). Of course it’s possible that those sort of bins came later as the system was taken over by MTT/STA/etc
http://www.thephonj.bur.st/pix/bused0c.JPG
(Incidentally, I never worked out exactly who the phonj is/was, but I used to think he was a bus driver who around the time this picture was taken might have been based at Hendon Depot (I was working from Port Adelaide at the time, but Hendon was basically a sub-depot of the Port’s and as a casual I occasionally picked up shifts from there). He (and a very small handful of others on the busaustralia site) seem to have pretty thorough knowledge of (or access to) a whole heap of SA public transport history.
Incidentally, this turned up in something I was looking at recently – I know people had asked bus australia this question before, but somehow I’d missed this response:
http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=55720
Anywho, short version: Pete, I agree, we don’t know he arrived by train that morning at all.
@JS: My understanding (and I did quite thoroughly go through this – because I originally thought there was simply confusion over St Leonards vs Somerton buses and thought we just had a bad assumption handed down) is that it is quite certain the ticket was purchased on St L bus (although as I said before, if transfers were allowed back then, he could have changed buses further down the track). The conductor *from the 11:15 St Leonard’s bus* identified the ticket as having been sold on his service between the Railway Station and the corner of West and South Tce. The reason he could do this (and even tell us how many tickets had been sold in that section), is because he had to record what ticket number they were up to at each section change (or equivalent). To me, the evidence of the day suggests the ticket came from the St L bus.
@dude47: I’m pretty sure by that time the tram was running from Victoria Square. So for SM to have taken a tram to Glenelg, he’d have to walk down there first – compared to a St Leonard’s bus right at the station (where he’d bought the HB ticket and dropped off his suitcase if we believe the normal narrative). While some of that might be indicative of an out-of-towner, I think I know a lot of locals who would rather catch an uncomfortable bus nearby than walk any distance to a tram or train (the Lefevre peninsula has 2 bus services along Military and Victoria roads despite having a train line in the middle of them (about 200m from the bus). With the longest distance between stations being under 1km. Even including the houses on the outside of that corridor (ie beach side of Military Road, or Port River side of Victoria Road) most people on the peninsula would be able to get to the train with less than 1km walk (or maybe ever so slightly more) – so why do you need a (much slower, uncomfortable) bus service as well? Because people are lazy. (Not that it’s relevant, but back then the bus service to the peninsula took a different route, and I think terminated in Magarey street (of Magnoson fame), but I might be wrong). I digress – I think even many locals would have hopped om a bus at the Railway station rather than wandering down to Vic square (that aside from everything else would take another 20-30 minutes).
Hi Milongal
I went down the same paths and reached the same conclusions re the St Leonards bus for all the same reasons . The consensus at the time was that Keane “must have” alighted at St Leonards .
Where we may disagree here is no the departure of the Glenelg tram at Victoria square.
It is true that the vast majority of the tram network was de commissioned and the only route remaining was the vic square to Mosley square Glenelg ,this did not happen until the mid 50s by my research. The system was bleeding money and the car industry was booming.
The records are a dogs breakfast but I think you’ll find the trams were still running out of North Terrace adjacent Parliament House and the train station in to the mid 50s.
If you google photos of Parliament House Adelaide in the 50s you will see the trams in most of these photographs.
Ergo I am comfortable that this option ” at tram from nth tce ” was available to Keane in 1948.
PS All the maps of the time appear pretty clear that Keane could tram from Nth terrace / king William corner. The passengers make the side by side swap at Vic square to the bay express. No need to walk to Vic square. The Bay track cutting through south western suburbs in minutes to Mosley.
milongal: I mentioned some time back that main line rail tickets, especially between state capitals came as redeemable warrant rather than in the form we are most familiar. They were issued in respect of government employees, service personell and group travellers like migrants or even railway staff, which could explain away the absence of such a used rail jorney stub in SM’s posession. By the way pb is most interested in having arrived by plane due to his screen/script writer’s need for something more up to date, but there is a big problem in store with regard to logistics which neither have considered apparently.
@JS: I’ve previously considered (and possibly read) that a plane to Parafield and a train to the city might have been an option – but like so many other ideas, I’m not really sure how much it’s worth delving too far into an option that there doesn’t really seem to be any direct evidence to corroborate – so I’d be quick to consider it and dismiss it on the basis of “there’s no real reason to think he did” – or something. But coming back to something else you’ve mentioned in the past – did you ever look into Henley Beach trains departures and arrivals BEFORE the one he is thought to have missed?
@Dude: I hadn’t considered transfers, because I’m not sure if they were allowed back then** (my point was more that the Glenelg Tram was terminating in Vic Square since 1929)
However transferring assumes one of:
– travel within the city sq mile (as I think it is on the tram these days) was free
– that you could transfer trips on a single ticket (**)
– that you’re willing (and able) to dodge the fare over the short hop
– that you’re happy to pay multiple fares (possibly one small, one less small)
It would also require you to have some trust in the frequency of service to be able to comfortably make the changeover – and how did the cost compare? Convenience and cost affect how a lot of people behave.
It seems the decision to terminate at Vic Square was unpopular with people who lived on the line (which does mean some peak services were extended to the railway station). The unpopularity of this decision to me suggests that there would have been an inconvenience and/or cost associated with transferring for a trip into the retail centre (or elsewhere in the city).
So sure, I suppose it would be a possible choice, and was available to him, but I wouldn’t be ready to dismiss SM being a local *solely* on the basis that he didn’t do the tram hop.
**I’ll admit I’m not as intimate with Adelaide’s transport system as some, but I assumed transfer tickets came about when Adelaide had a ‘zoned’ transport system (which wikipedia tells me was as late as 1979 when STA was the over-arching authority). A zone ticket would give you a certain time you could travel within a particular zone, with 3-zone tickets allowing transfers anywhere within the network (last time I saw a single-trip/transfer ticket, they still have ‘Z3’ on them, even though zones have long since disappeared).
I’m not sure whether 2-zone or 1-zone tickets allowed transfers, however I suspect they did because that seems to have been the purpose of zones, and the alternative is a “Section Ticket” that allowed travel on a single vehicle for a maximum of 2 sections (the length of a Section varies, but I think AdMet always claimed they’re about 1.8km on average – but there’s definitely some really short ones), and they’re potentially a bit of a headache for cross-suburban routes (although it doesn’t really matter if different buses at the same location are in different sections, I suppose)…but we digress.
Hi Milongal
Love the detail in your posts. I guess we’ve had 70 years to weigh up the pros and cons of Keanes choice of transport. However my guess is that on the morning of November 30th he considered his options for a minute or two at best.
We have little to go on and I dont assume Keane wasn’t well familiar with Adelaide “solely” on his choice of bus over tram. It just leads me to suspect this may have been the case.
The Glenelg “bay” tram is to Adelaide what the Manly ferry is to Sydney siders.
If someone said to a Sydney sider “I caught the Bus from Manly to circular key” a local may say “why didn’t you catch the ferry ? “
JS is it correct that you had words re PBs parents as that appears to be what Pete is suggesting?
Whilst I can clearly remember the Glelelg tram terminal from my first trip into Adelaide from the hills in early 1967, I never did get to make the trip. Likewise the Manly Ferry which I frequently saw making for the heads or coming back towards Circular Quay, from my perch at Admiralty House, never prompted me to work up desire to climb aboard one. As with smelly socks and lightly soiled briefs, I’m not on board either and as for rolled bum fodder, it seems to be more useful on soup kitchen tables where I live.
Ill take that as a yes. Disgraceful
Nah dude, Pete’s just a little disappointed with himself for using his dad as a stalking horse and not anticipating that it could possibly turn around and bite his bottom. Mans got his limitations sure enough (there but for….etc) including an ego like Trump and believing his writing is on par with James Ellroy’s best. Likes to be Called a “Dangerous Intellectual” when behind his back, those closest to old Bozo refer to him as a clown and a gangerous ineffectual. He’ll get over it with a little help from his fiends including this old Vietnam war deserter, Don’t mean nothin man.
Dude ’74: If that’s the best to have to offer boyo, no doubt prompting from the boss then you can take your silver paper along with the other useless car jacking paraphernalia, jump on a Glenelg tram and we’ll see you at St. Leonards pub for a West End wet which is about all your taste buds are worth, with all due respect.
Love your work mate but I’ll be back when you’ve cleaned house Nick P
Well it looks like the vitriol has died down which is nice to see. Happy to continue the tread with the grown ups. Milongal I also feel the complete lack of one credible identification indicates Keane was a new face.
@dude: true to form I’ve gone off script, so scroll to the bottom if you need.
As per almost every post I’ve ever made here ore elsewhere….I think a lot of (most even) ‘fact’ is speculation, and it’s difficult to split out concrete fact (there were 2 tickets in his pocket) from speculation (he started his day at the railways station looking for a train to Henley and ended up catching a bus to Glenelg (or equivalent)). Much of what we rely on comes from historic records – some more accurate than others, and (as I’ve asserted several times) even the “proofs” or “conclusions” from Government specialists might be unreliable (in part because in the beginning it was a mundane death and they later may have needed to justify a conclusion they made (I’m not saying data was made up per se, but….)). The one that stands out to me from this perspective is the matching of the paper from the Rubaiyat as ‘probably similar’ (the paper itself). Aside from considerations on how many different places paper might have come from that wasn’t ‘probably similar’ (granted, I’m sure there were multiple mills producing multiple different types of paper – but anything other than a ‘definite, exact match’ is, well, not a definite match). Couple this with a Governmnet analyst who is being pressured to prove they match (and having spent some time in an around the public services, I could imagine that the pressure is not to come up with an answer one way or the other, but specifically to come up with the ‘right’ answer (and FWIW I don’t think this is malicious, I just think it’s inherent in some organisations where there’s an expectation to prove (rather than disprove) stuff based on your expertise).
But we digress from your question….
Nobody noticed SM that day – but how much later were they asked? When I drove buses, I suspect the probability of me remembering a random one of my passengers the following day was reasonably high. Ask the same question a week later and I could probably only do it if they were anythin slightly out of the ordinary….a month later and they’d need to have stuck out for a particular reason.
Secondly, it assumes the post-mortem shots that were shown these people are a reasonable likeness (even something like presence or absence of a tie that he had worn that day might make a difference). And itsuddenly occurs to me “what if he wore glasses?” – although I’m sure someone’s been down that rabbit hole and decided against it….
Thirdly (one of my hobby horses) what if none of the contents of his pocket were his? If he were never at the railway station then that might explain why he wasn’t seen there. If he never caught the bus, it might be why noone remembers him.
Fourthly, and I sort of alluded to this in an earlier post, most of this identification is on the basis that he was travelling alone. What if he had met some acquaintance and they travelled on the bus together – when asked about a specific individual, many ofus would have a tendancy to assume we’re trying to recall someone travelling on their own (but what if the reason he didn’t board the Henley train is because he met someone at the station and traveled *with them* to Glenelg.
There’s part of me that thinks a new face is more noticeable (although not necessarily more memorable) because it’s something beyond what you’re used to. I would sometimes notice when regular passengers weren’t on my service, but I didn’t necessarily notice them when they were. That is, familiar faces aren’t all that noticeable – unless something in their behaviour is out of the ordinary (e.g. they’re not there).
Of course, in terms of recognising someone longer term, that specific example falls out the window – but I think in terms of ‘blending in’ it could mean there was nothing unusual about him (which you’d think could be a little at odds with his beach attire).
Increasingly, whether local or not, I think the idea he wasn’t alone might be a possibility. It helps explain the Henley ticket (*normal disclaimer about assumptions tickets were his); it goes some way to his not being noticeable – not only because people retrospectively tried to remember an individual, but because a pair of well dressed men heading up the Anzac Highway may be travelling out somewhere on business rather than going to the beach (and while that might still be true of an individual, I think it sticks out more as an individual).
The lack of identification is, as you point out, the most pointing in terms of whether he was local. NP did have a post about something similar to Omerta or criminal code of silence – but I find that quite hard to believe. His subsequent lack of identification is difficult to explain if he is a local (I think GF dismisses it as being a characteristic of the post-war era – that there were displaced people with no friends or family who simply went unnoticed). I suspect there was also a reasonable amount of post-war movement by people looking for a new start (Prosper and J had only moved to Adelaide a couple of years before) – which perhaps might make it easier for someone to inadvertently go unnoticed (and I suppose that sort of means he was new enough in town not to be a local).
So short version: yes, I agree that him not being identified as the newspapers reached out goes someway to demonstrating he wasn’t local – but as with most things in this case, I wouldn’t be comfortable absolutely guaranteeing it.