The Somerton Man, found dead by the sea wall on Somerton Beach in the early morning of 1st December 1948, has had innumerable speculative theories pinned to his unnamed corpse over the years.
Was he a Soviet spy, an international man of mystery, a former lover, an errant parent, a Third Officer, a gangster, a baccarat school nitkeeper, an interstate car thief, a jockey, an accountant, a ballet dancer, a transvestite, a gold prospector, a homesick Norwegian, or a whatever-happens-to-take-your-fancy-tomorrow-morning kind of guy? The list keeps on growing.
But why so many theories?
John Does & Jane Does
In the wider world of cold cases, plenty of other John / Jane Does are arguably every bit as mysterious as the Somerton Man.
Yet if you’re expecting there to be a (socially-distanced, mask-wearing) queue of people stretching down the high street waiting to bend my weary Cipher Mysteries ear with their tediously touching theories about the Isdal Woman, for example, you’ll be looking in vain. (There’s a nice news story about her teeth here, by the way.)
Oh, and despite Wired’s nice story about the unidentified hiker known as “Mostly Harmless”, I haven’t so far seen a torrent of theories speculating that he was an Anglo-American Douglas Adams fan obsessed by Marvin the Paranoid Android. Or a gold prospector. Or a car thief. Or whatever.
“The first ten million years were the worst,” said Marvin, “and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn’t enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline.”
So the issue here is more about why those others don’t seem to attract even a fraction of the theories that he does. What’s the difference that leads people’s minds to conjure up such a glut of (possible) Somerton Men?
Life & Death
Even by the 1949 inquest, a good deal was known about the Somerton Man’s physical condition and the details of his death:
- “[S]mall vessels not commonly observed in the brain were easily discernible with congestion” – I believe this would have taken a considerable time to build up, perhaps years?
- “The spleen was strikingly large and firm about 3 times normal size” – this too would have taken some time to happen, perhaps months?
- “Both lungs were dark with congestion, but otherwise normal.” Like most adults back then, the Somerton Man was a smoker, so this was very probably a long-term consequence of his smoking.
- “The stomach was deeply congested, and there was superficial redness, most marked in the upper half. Small haemorrhages were present beneath the mucosa. There was congestion in the 2nd half of the duodenum continuing through the thin part. There was blood mixed with the food in the stomach.” The blood in his stomach showed that he had almost certainly been convulsively sick (though, oddly, there was no vomit by the body or on his clothes or his oddly-shiny shoes);
- “The heart, if anything, was contracted […] I am quite convinced that the death could not have been natural, as there is such a conflict of findings with the normal heart.” A poison or misadministered drug was suggested, though all attempts to detect what that was unfortunately failed.
- “There was a small patch of dried saliva at the right of the mouth. The impression was that it ran out of his mouth some time before death when he was probably unable to swallow it, probably when his head was hanging to the side. It would run vertically. It had run down diagonally down [sic] the right cheek.“
- “The post mortem rigidity was intense, and there was a deep lividity behind particularly above the ears and neck.” Blood pooling at the back of his neck was inconsistent with his having been propped up against the sea wall at the back of the beach prior to his death.
- His body had been carefully posed, but with various key elements of his clothing (like a wallet, id card, money, hat, etc) missing
It was hard to avoid the conclusion that poison (or drugs) had been the cause of death; and also that many of the “difficulties” and apparent inconsistencies would disappear if the man had previously died elsewhere, and had then been carried to the beach by person or persons unknown.
But with nobody stepping forward to (successfully) identify the body, this whole line of reasoning merely raised at least as many questions as it answered: and so the inquest was not able to reach a helpful conclusion.
And that, sad as it may be, is still very largely where we are some 70+ years later. Something bad had happened, sure; but without being able to flag it as murder, misadventure, accident or suicide, what’s a coroner to do, eh?
(Human) Nature Abhors a Vacuum
Aristotle famously wrote about the Horror Vacui, i.e. the idea that Nature abhors a vacuum so much that it causes things to fill the void. (Though even fifteenth century engineers knew that this principle had its limits.)
To my eyes, though, it seems that Human Nature abhors a vacuum far more than poor old Mother Nature does. That is, where there is a causal void – i.e. a lack of explanation as to the cause – the runaway horses in our minds gallop and leap impossible fences to construct explanations.
In the case of the Somerton Man, none of the sudden death tropes of the day so familiar to newspaper readers were present – no gangland execution, no violent lover’s argument, no business betrayal, no drowning, no falling drunk down a set of stairs, no being hit by a car. In short: no smoking gun.
Ultimately, a quiet death on a beach – however posed or artificial the Somerton Man’s mise-en-scene may have seemed to those looking carefully – was a disappointment to those hoping for the theatrics of violence.
And so I think it is not the Somerton Man’s actual death that so inspired the theories so much as the absence of explicit forensic theatre. He died cleanly, with nicely groomed fingernails, and wearing shiny shoes: which is all wrong on some level.
Evidence of Absence
But above all else, I think the most disturbing thing about the Somerton Man’s death lies in none of the details that were noted, but instead in the fact that – barring a little bit of sand at the back of his head – he seems to have had no real forensic contact with his (supposed) place of death.
Really, the scenario where someone undergoes the trauma of convulsive death throes while laying on a beach and yet somehow manages to avoid ending up covered in vomit and sand makes no sense to me whatsoever. This is a direct affront to Locard’s Exchange Principle, right?
So can we please call a halt on the whole “romantic loner suicide” scenario? The whole idea that he somehow travelled to Somerton Beach just to die on his own simply makes no physical sense.
Similarly, calling him “The Unknown Man” makes no sense to me either. Rather, I suspect that he spent his last hours in a nearby house, laid out on his back on someone’s bed before dying there, and then being left there for a few hours with his head tilted backwards over the edge (while the blood pooled in his neck).
It also seems highly likely to me that people from that house tidied him up (even cleaning and shining his shoes), before carrying him to the beach and posing his body against the sea wall there.
Essentially, if the Somerton Man did not die on the beach, we can be sure that the people who knew him – and who brought him there – have carefully airbrushed themselves out of the picture. He was very much known.
The Missing Thread
In many ways, I’m not that interested in all the different people the Somerton Man might have been. The glut of possible Somerton Men we have are only ever hypothetical, a long row of Pepper’s ghosts we summon up to try to work out what happened, like CSI bullet trajectory sticks.
And yet in some ways we know almost too much about the mundane mechanics of it all: perhaps our dead man even had his final pasty at Glenelg’s All Night Cafe.
In the end, all we’re missing is the narrative thread of a single life that binds all these pieces together. It’s like we’re trying to solve an upside-down jigsaw, where all our attempts to be scientific and rigorous have failed to turn any of the pieces the right way up.
But even if – mirabile dictu – exhumed DNA magically hands us a name on a silver dish, will we really be able to completely reconstruct the jigsaw’s picture side?
Having spent so many years on this man’s trail, I can’t help but suspect that we won’t. Perhaps some secrets don’t want to be known: not all Ariadne’s threads are there to be followed.
I’d settle for a name. Would you?
Bumpkin: I’d indeed be very happy for a definite name (particularly if it isn’t the one we have already). I’m just flagging that there may well be less to find than we would like.
A name would surely be just the first domino? There’d be a history attached to it. Perhaps some living relatives, etc.
Anyway, I’m glad you finally mention the Isdal Woman. I believe there are some here among us who have an interest in her. And there is of course a ‘cipher’ aspect in her case, too: her handwritten note that suggests (at first glance) locations and dates.
Like our friend Mr. Keane, she seems to have blown into town at an intriguing time of weapons tests, so the spy conspiracy brigade are all over the case. Can’t be long before they find some tiny writing.
Perhaps you have some thoughts?
Nick: I can’t see too much to complain about, in fact you’ve managed to cleverly avoid contensious issues that might lead to division amongst the accepted SM hierarchy; even to the extent of saying little if anything likely to bring on the usual flurry of abuse and disagreement. Even by slipping in your cleverly concocted body substitution ploy involving a late evening delivery from a safe house would find favour with punters having nothing to back-up their own pliagarised initiatives eg. re-Pete’s striped duds, no matches conundrum and another’s imported hit team mit clean-up crew occupying the vacant Nunn house opposite. PS: Such a pity you chose to inset a circa 1970 pic of the boulder strewn embankment for decorative appeal as opposed to the Advertiser original with its concrete sea wall, child proof stairset with lover’s seat and a panoramic shot of the beach, Alvington House and the roadway above X marks the spot.
Bumpkin: It would have been nice to have had some more input on my recent posts re your former nemisis John Rau’s reluctance to issue an exhumation order based on legal opinion. Do you have something to add regarding possibikity of an ulterior motive amounting to a conflict of interest on his part eg. his close Keane (paternal grandmother) family links, or his having once lived close to an address of SM interest and more. Better to let’s all know by what other means we might niw pursue your main objective!
I wonder what a modern forensic pathologist would make of the medical description? Rigidity not related to rigor mortis etc.etc.
Have any of the recent writers included modern medical evaluations of that description?
John Sanders: I was a bit bored of the same old picture of the beach, and thought I’d wheel out a different one, keep everyone on their toes etc. 🙂
The intrigue in SM (as opposed to other cases – although as others have mentioned, I think the Isdal woman does attract a lot of intrigue too, and perhaps we could add the Bogle-Chandler case and half a dozen others too) is the total inconsistencies (some of which you highlight in your article).
The TS (And subsequent code) also attracts interest – because it suddenly makes people read that this is something other than a “mundane death”. At the time it attracted some attention largely as police sought to identify the body, and the subsequent discovery of the “code” re-invigorated the interest as suddenly people embraced this as somehow linked to espionage – or some equally romantic thought.
The interest seems to go in waves – there seems to have been very little between Littlemore’s storry about Ruffles’ theories and Abbott engaging his Engineering underlings with their mathematical attempts to break the code (in between which Feltus was obviously looking into things, although his book obviously appeared a little later). And it’s somewhere through the Abbott stuff that Cramer got wind of it and seems to have aggressively marketed his ideas through the media which has kept the interest flowing. In the last lustrum or 2 years interest seems to have particularly exploded – and I think this is sort of a “perfect storm” between the release of Feltus’ book, the vigour of Abbott’s attempts to organise an exhumation, and some of Cramer’s claims reaching wider audiences (and selling intrigue beyond all else). I know PB reads here too, so I’ll add that his book may well have contributed too – certainly his research for it has given us some interesting avenues to look at we might not otherwise have thought of.
I agree the suicide scenario make no sense (why hide a slip intending to finalise your departure and – presumably – indicate it was intentional). That said, every other scenario anyone comes up with doesn’t make sense either – because there is simply too much conflicting evidence. One of the few things we can confidently say is that there seems to have been evidence that has been added or removed (or both). Naturally, it doesn’t help that a lot of our view is based on newspaper articles. This, coupled with a tendency to read too much into the wording (both in articles and any other records we can find) means that we come up with fanciful explanations for otherwise normal occurrences. Add into that seemingly inconsistent descriptions and it’s not too hard to fit any narrative you want to some version of the “facts”. And of course (as I think I flagged often in the past) confirmation bias helps us to pick the versions that best suit our pet theory (and happily dismiss the other
I often think about Abbott’s “list of things we know about Somerton Man” and “list of things often misreported about Somerton Man”. I think the former is too long, and perhaps the latter is too short.
We know a body was found on Somerton Beach on 1 Dec 1948. We know what he was wearing and what he had on his person (to some degree – I understand different sources have slightly different interpretations of his belongings). But every little bit of evidence beyond that becomes more blurry. The “code page” isn’t definitively linked to the slip; the suitcase isn’t definitively linked to SM. SM wasn’t definitively in Adelaide Railway Station on the morning of the 30 Nov, and wasn’t necessarily transiting from interstate if he was…. usw.
Some of it we can have more confidence on than others, but very little of it we can say with any certainty. Perhaps that lack of certainty gives all of us the opportunity to be “experts” on our own tale, and so much as we’re intrigued by the story we’re also playing Sherlock Holmes (at least in our own mind). Increasingly I realise that were very unlikely to ever satisfactorily resolve it. I think (despite what we might say) very few of us would stop if we had a name. We’d then speculate on his personal life; on who he upset enough to end up on the beach; on why he ended up at Somerton Beach; etc. We love a mystery, and we’ll happily create a mystery out of the slightest unresolved issue – and once we resolve it, we’ll find another mystery (often related on some detail to it). Or we decide that our solution to the mystery might be wrong and decide an a better, deeper conspiracy…..it will go on forever (but that ain’t gonna stop us)
@JS: It’s hard to get past the body substitution (but there’s very little time because of the tides). If you have an old pair of shoes, polish them up nicely and then put saltwater on them. They don’t stay shiny. I know the “…cold and damp” that someone (Moss?) mentions has previously had me agreeing he must have been on the beach at high tide, but I’m struggling to get past the shoes (unless someone put them on after the high tide. I also think with the tide peaking at 4:30AM (from memory), by 6:30 (or even 8AM when the body was removed) I’d expect it to be a bit wetter than “damp” (although I’ll accept a 20C overnight coupled with a warm morning maybe works to that end – and in fact in such weather then only dampness would be from the sea – Adelaide is not a humid place (in fact I know many a QLDer who argue Adelaide’s sometimes extreme heat is bearable because it’s a dry heat (unlike the humidity they get in QLD with somewhat cooler maxima) – although that said, I don’t know how many of them have actually been in Adelaide during a heatwave when sometimes the overnight temperature doesn’t drop below 30C).
“Cold and damp” to me is pretty meaningless. Objectively how cold? How damp? I read it as “cold and damp by human body standards”. Which is exactly what you’d expect of a corpse. No need for it to have been immersed.
Same with the polished shoes. How polished? Can someone really objectively judge by ‘degree of polishedness’ how far or how long someone may have walked in a pair of shoes? And if I recall correctly, no one made a big deal of any supposed incongruity between location and condition of footwear at the time.
I agree with milongal (BTW: “usw”? Klingt eher nach deutsch als australisch?): seizing on these tidbits feels like confirmation bias. Same with the trousers and matches. All unsubstantiated.
Nick,
Not a fair comparison yet with “Mostly Harmless”, as that sorta just happened, and on the Appalacian trail, a far less remote place than mid 20th century Australia it would seem to me. One thing about MH (and saving you guys a click) is that he had a fascination for the uber geeky game “Screeps”, a line programmable object game similar to Origins Tank game “Omega” that he scibbled in a journal. Was this is interest conducted in a vacuum? People who are strong researchers of MH, should try to make sure that known info is better preserved NOW (than I have there are gripes about SM’s stuff is) for future researchers. Interesting stuff though sir.
D. N. O’Donovan: With respect, I can find no mention of the pathologist saying anything remotely resembling your assigned attribution, namely that the SM’s “Rigidity was not related to rigor mortis etc. etc.” What the man did mention in his inquest testimony is that ‘the post mortem rigidity was intense, and there was a deep lividity behind particularly above the ears and neck’ Of course one might well excuse a refrigerated body for being a little on the stiff or rigid side, though I’m pretty sure that is not quite what Dr. Dwyer was on about.
Diane, See Wkipedia.
“n 1994 John Harber Phillips, Chief Justice of Victoria and Chairman of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, reviewed the case to determine the cause of death and concluded that “There seems little doubt it was digitalis.”[60] Phillips supported his conclusion by pointing out that the organs were engorged, consistent with digitalis, the lack of evidence of natural disease and “the absence of anything seen macroscopically which could account for the death”
Phillips, J.H. “So When That Angel of the Darker Drink”, Criminal Law Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, April 1994, p. 110.
The lack of success in determining the identity and cause of death of the Somerton Man had led authorities to call it an “unparalleled mystery” and believe that the cause of death might never be known.
Byron: thanks very much for that, perfect. 🙂
Matt: Somerton Beach wasn’t remote at all – the man’s body was found first thing in the morning on what was a fairly busy beach, with people going along it from early morning to mid-evening.
I’ve read up on Screeps, which you clearly need to be a bit programmery (dare I say nerdy) to enjoy. Presumably people have trawled r/screeps looking for HHGTG-obsessed users who stopped posting around April 2017?
Tamara Bunke: as John Sanders pointed out, I tried to steer clear of the trousers and matches in the post, preferring to rely as directly on the inquest text as possible.
Raymond Lionel Leane said of the shoes (p.22): “They are practically new, and very clean. They look as though they had been polished that morning, or later.”
My argument was less about the shininess of his shoes than about how someone writhing on the beach with stomach pain could make such small forensic contact with his environment.
Leonid: yes, that was a nice quote from 11 April 1949 – https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/36361680 🙂
Nick, two issues occur to me. Firstly, is the inquest text sufficiently detailed in this regard to suggest that SM did NOT writhe around? For example, I don’t recall any mention of an incongruity between his physical state (and the state of the scene) and his putative cause of death. If there had been, you’d think Cleland et al would have used it to strengthen their comment about “difficulties disappearing” if death had occurred elsewhere. As it is, they didn’t take up the opportunity. Makes me think that – to them – nothing really looked out of place?
Secondly, approaching this another way, is there anything to suggest that the cause of death would have inevitably caused any writhing around at all? The man’s internal bleeding and “congestion” are likely to have been long-standing issues. He’s functioned perfectly reasonably with them up to the point of death. Why start writhing now? I remember the quote from the cyclist who found “Neil Dovestone” on the track on Saddleworth Moor in 2015. He said “Neil” looked just like he was taking a nap at the side of the path.
Neil, later identified as David Lytton, had self-administered strychnine. Which by all accounts isn’t a pretty way to go.
As a post script to this: it took a year or more to identify Neil, despite these being living relatives who had known about the case. It came down to police legwork in the end. Eventually his name was found on a flight list from Pakistan.
The one thing no one (incl. family) could understand is “why Saddleworth”. He had no known connection with the place. Until someone came forward this year with the simple theory that, as a tube driver in the 1980s, David would have seen a then prominent poster campaign featuring the location at which he chose to end his life. Perhaps not a lesson for SM? But may apply to Peter Bergmann.
Nick,
It seems to me that getting to Austrailia in any fashion is more difficult than getting to spot “x” on the Appalacian Trail in the US. The thing I was trying to stress that I failed miserably at was, is just because people haven’t concocted far out theories yet, does not mean they will not. You can take some comfort in the fact that there is no cipher element in it, that I am aware of at least, so you can tell people with justification that it is outside your zone of interest if is too much. Going over it myself the other night, it seems people inferred from there experiences with him, they “might” have a handle on who he was. The jury is still out on the genealogical data, though. I wonder if the existance of the (excellent) Wired article means that is not going so well.
Matt: the Wired article just says that some DNA info is planned to be released next month, so not too long to wait, I guess.
Matt: there were only 174 posts to r/screeps before May 2017, and it shouldn’t take long to rule out nearly all of the posters there. Might try that later…
Tamara Bunke: have you read through the 1949 inquest? A pdf is on Derek Abbott’s primary evidence page, and he’s also put up an HTML version.
Nick, yes I have read it. And in the 49 inquest, Hicks and Cleland are quite clear that there is no reason to suspect any “trauma of convulsive death throes”. Hicks clarifies that any expected convulsions (if they occur at all) can be minor movements such as the “raised arm” witnesses at around 7pm.
The problem I have with your theory of “forensic contact” with the place of death is that you’re applying 21st century forensic awareness to a mid 20th century investigation. The absence of a forensically useful description of the crime scene does not mean there was an absence of forensic evidence.
And as to your thoughts on the lonely beach death making “no sense” at all: look again at the David Lytton / Neil Dovestone case. The sense is there somewhere, it’s just not evident.
Tamara Bunke: well… if you rely on the actual evidence in the inquest rather than on inferences drawn by different witnesses, I think there is plenty of forensic meat to dine upon.
@Tamara: Cold I get compared to a warm living body. Damp, I struggle with – especially on a warm, dry night. My point re the shoes is that leather shoes that have had saltwater would not be “polished” or even “clean”. They go a murky/scuffed tecture very quickly (mind you, as you point out, it’s one of those details that seems to have become prominent a lot later). That said, given what we know of the tide, and the lack of vomit (and other forensics) around the body, I’m not uncomfortable with the idea that if the body was there through the night, it had at some point been partially submerged (and I think the reports that it “…had not been in the water” might be better interpreted as “….had not washed ashore” – but of course that’s me being hypocritical and brinign in my own confirmation biases).
Incidentally, the mention of remoteness reminds me (I’ve probably mentioned this before)….if you’re looking for a nice place to go quietly while watching your last sunset the beach North of Glenelg (closer to where the St Leonards bus would have terminated – and note even the South of the mouth of the Patawalonga would have been a lot less busier than it is today (most of that development is VERY recent) would be far quieter. In fact, extrapolating that a little further, if SM was indeed an out-of-towner, why has he decided to go to Glenelg (Adelaide’s best known and probably busiest beach)? You might argue he also had the Henley ticket – but once again you’re talking about one of Adelaide’s busiest beaches (at the time perhaps Semaphore might have been busier), but there’s large tracts of other beach easily accessible (with nearby public transport) that would be equally remote. I understand when you’re at the railway station you’re not going to ask a ticket clerk “where’s a nice beach to die?”, but I would imagine you could have a discussion about wanting to go to a beach that “isn’t necessarily very busy” (and I would think Largs and Semaphore South/Tennyson would fir the bill and (I’d have to double check) would have been reachable by public transport (Largs is on the Outer Harbor Line, but Tennyson might only have become easily reachable as West Lakes was developed in the mid 1970s). In fact, back then a lot of the area North of Largs (where Mangnoson went missing) would have been largely vacant, so a train to Outer Harbor (and any of the stops beyond Largs that existed (I think all of them except North Haven were already built – although while North Haven wasn’t there, there was “Yerlo” between Osborne and Outer Harbor (not sure if in the same location where North Haven is today)). All of those stations are an easy walk to a beach which back then would have been a lot less busy than Glenelg (and North of Fort Largs have a long track through the dunes that takes you well away from the road too).
Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in finding out th truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they here…some old Greek philosopher
Fundoshis were a slit sided skimoy breech cloth used by P.O.W.s in the Nippon death camps during WW2 which would ensure full leg tanning up to the croch; This being the most unusual condition described by pathologist Dwyer who suggested his subject could only have aquired it by continual use of bathers? over time. More interesting to me were his thoughts as to when such a ‘sunburning’ effect might have occurred, stressing that it could not have been during the previous year ’48 but likely the summer before and possibly even earlier than that
Take for example 2/21btn (104 LAD) digger Lcpl. Charlie McDougall, who was taken prisoner in early ’42 on Ambon (Gull Force), then sent off to Hainan to spend the war labouring for the Japs his usual attire comprised of a pair of ‘jap-happys’ and army shirt in hot sun drenched conditions for most oart. Being one of the few to survive the three year ordeal, his subsequent means of repatriation are somewhat uncertain (at this stage), though he was known to have been aboard the HMAS Glenelg in September ’45 and we understand it arrived in Adelaide with it’s motley bunch of, by then well nourished former tanned walking skeletons around new years day 1946.
NB: Chas was selected amongst about three hundred survivors due to being the only one listed amongst 1000+ without full personal details vis DOB, NOK, locality etc., so take note that I make no suggestion as to his being Somerton Man.
I don’t know about you folks, but in my experience, if a man was to lie down on soft sand wearing shoes it wouldn’t take much movement to have said sand introduced inside his shoes in uncomfortable quantities .. and according to Strapps, the man he was watching was moving his legs around some.
Mention was made of sand being found in the cuffs of his trousers, but they were the duds found in his suitcase
Truth is, no one knows anything about SM apart from some idea of his physical attributes and the clothes he wore, and yet we’ve all had a crack at getting inside the poor fellows head, confidently second guessing every move he made from the time he decided on Adelaide as a destination, up until he breathed his last on a warm Tuesday eveneng, be it Somerton Beach or elsewhere, depending on one’s sense of imigination. These more or less self serving presumptions all started with the first press releases in 1948, continuing through generally baseless S.A. Police assumtions and in 1949 the Coroner’s summing up of so-called presumptive facts; Later we had the Littlemore Inside Sory mind reading excercise, then the wishy washy old detective’s own re-construction narative of his Unknown Man’s likely train of thought…What foolishness, what damned self assertive audacity and at the end of the day, a likely load of Baltic nesamone all round..I’ll own my share for whatever it’s worth.
Tamara: The crime? scene, as you will by now be familiar had you taken my advice, was seemingly composed of a flat belt of non descript stable looking beach sand as the original press photo depicts rather nicely. According to our first offender Jack Lyons, the man was lying on the beach, partially supported by a flat seawall, alongside which stood a set of special purpose stairs. In the beach surrounds there is little to note, apart from some small piles of debris near the wall, derived we can assume from an accumullation of tidal flotsum positioned with help of wind and wave action over sand constantly moving when so affected. So we have a comrade lying there in state over a full king tide period at least. So when constable Moss arrived at seven in the morning, golly gosh everthing looking so spic & span with nary a sign of disturbance, vis. no mess or debris around the body, no horse shit or signs of hoof pawing to be seen, no hat or false teeth, matches or vomit etc. Only natural since the big high of 4.50am was by then on the way out and taking with it any signs of junk or earlier sand disturbance…..By the way comrade, you might care to note some changes in Lyons two later versions which were done without any professional coaching vis. “Both hands shot straight up then dropped..death spasms” and “…same position except that in the morning he was flat out on the sand” , statement of which was supported by hoop Neil Day in 2018.
Nick, it’s highly selective meat you’re dining on, isn’t it? For example, the report only mentions sand in relation to the corpse’s hair and – IIRC – the turn-ups on some trousers (I’m not even sure if they were the trousers he was wearing, striped or otherwise).
It seems reasonable to assume that, even if the body had lain on the beach for only moments, there would be evidence of sand adhering to his jacket, trousers, etc. Yet sand is not mentioned descriptively (nor remarked upon analytically) in this context at all – either as presence or absence.
That is to say: the description (the meat) is coloured by the forensic awareness and standards of the time and is necessarily selective. Doesn’t it present an unreliable basis for any conclusion?
Re-Peteb: For information of those who might not be yet familiar with your habit of taking most things conveniently and extremely out of context, the dieing man that Strapps WASN’T watching to any degree at didn’t budge. The witness DIDN’T say that SM ‘was moving his legs around some’ by any stretch. He had merely formed the opinion that, based on positiing at his first glimpse upon arrival and his last at 8pm. with benefit of (absent) street lighting, the position of the legs appeared to have changed. Girlfriend Olive didn’t think so from memory.
I tend to agree with you about having no sand in his shoes, but only if the sand had been of a type Bondi beach bums are mostly familiar with. In saying that it reminds me of the lividity conundrum for Tom Cleland. Obviously not a beach sunbather or he would have surely known that a body lying on it’s back on the beach, stands a better than fair chance of experiencing the heavier head and shoulders sink down into the ever shifting sand base irrespective of wave influence…I think his distant cousin John Cleland knew the trick but didn’t speak up for some unknown reason.
I can’t see many resemblances with David Lytton’s case. David Lytton looked like someone who was having a rest, but only at a first glance, since “it was bitterly cold and the rain was torrential” (quote from the BBC News special article), he was just lying on the ground in a grassy patch, he “was not wearing anything approaching the right clothing for the walk or the weather”. The Somerton Man on the contrary was found in a studied position, with his feet crossed, his back against a wall and a half smoked cigarette in his mouth: the only apparent strangeness was the absence of a hat, that is strange, but not strikingly exceptional. There are many other substantial differences, like the fact that Lytton clearly killed himself with strychnine, which was found in a medicine container, while the Somerton Man left no hint about what killed him (if he took some poison, they found no signs about how he ingested said poison).
What is intriguing about the Somerton Man is the fact that all the many intricacies of the case (the missing labels of his clothes, the piece of paper torn from a rare book, etc.) seem to be studied, while, for example, the intricacies of the David Lytton’s case are the result of improvisation and chance. The case of the Somerton Man is a challenge, not a simple riddle.
Anyway, while we’re amusing ourselves with these trifling matters, over at GCHQ (Gordon Cramer Headquarters), ‘Turing’ Cramer has got his bombes out and is hand-cranking micro-written cipher text in the privacy of his outback Bletchley Park.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, it’s churning out Dzerzhinsky Square’s crown jewels, including Indonesian forenames and Romanian aircraft registrations.
I wonder if any of our crypto-boffins would take a peek under the Enigma’s lid and report back on his working out?
Tamara Bunke: really? Honestly? You haven’t worked that all out for yourself?
It’s not hard.
Being a technologist d’un certain age, I adhere to the maxim of GI/GO. So I’m dismissive of GCHQ’s enterprise on that premise alone. While that’s sufficient for a dilettante like myself, I just wondered if someone with more methodological nous would like to comment beyond that cursory, a priori dismissal. Just in case there are others less cynical abroad.
Tamara Bunke: if you’re looking for the GI part of your equation, here’s my 2017 post that lays out how it works:
https://ciphermysteries.com/2017/02/26/somerton-man-two-new-rubaiyat-scans
I remember it well, Nick.
@Pete – not sure the sand is necessarily soft (although the picture of the spot appears to disagree with me – I’ve long wondered when that shot was taken….on the same day? some time later? stock pic of Alvington?). Much of the beach South of about Grange (or certainly Henley) can see the water up to the rocks (not sure too much about South of Brighton), so they tend to have damp/compressed sand rather than the drier fine dunes you see through Semaphore, Largs and Taperoo (you also get more seaweed further North I think). But I still agree the lack of sand in his shoes is quite odd….
@Tamara – when you mentioned GCHQ you piqued my interest…..only to spoil it by pointing out what your version stands for (although that did make me laugh). I wrote a crude Enigma-like simulator once…sort of (it was based on my understanding of the Enigma machines at the time, which may not have been entirely correct). I think most here agree that even the claim that micro-writing could have been inadvertenly transfered from a sheet of paper in the book to the texta marks of the police seems a bit of a stretch. My bigger issue is the same as my issue with many things – it just doesn’t make sense. Why have seemingly random (and you have to say somewhat attention grabbing if not suspicious) letters on a page simoply to hide mirocode in them? Isn’t the point of microcode to appear in something otherwise innoccuous and beyond suspicion? So it could have been in the TS itself, or in the remainder of the rubaiyat almost anywhere (or in writing you add yourself that doesn’t look out of place – perhaps a message to whoever owns the book (that’s not to say I believe there’s micro writing in Boxall’s quote of v70 either – but hidden in that sort of message would seem far more covert) ….So we are asked to simultaneously accept that this microwriting was supposed to not attract attention, even though it’s put into random letters that immediately attract attention. Further, we are asked to believe that this technique which must have been readable in 1948 has so far not yielded anything meaningful with 2020 technology (might be wrong, but despite the claims of how “simple it is for anyone to replicate these results” I’ve not heard anyone that has (although that might be for want of trying).
And without meaning to get too personal, the source doesn’t help. This is the same person who insisted SM looked like Fedosimov; then realised the person he thought was Fedosimov was Novikov and suddenly decided he really looked more like the real Fedosimov. Then asked us to believe that despitge the difficulty of tracing even one Fedosimov 2 of them must have existed about the same age in similar Governme nt roles (and both married to Vera Sergeyevna). Perhaps realising how ridiculous this sounded, the story shifted to Fedosimov being a an alias that may have been reused by multiple “anonymous” agents (again, despite the fact we could find trace of exactly 1 (or 2 if you entertain the idea that the NY Fedosimov is NOT the one who was later (including through the SM years) assigned to the UK and Libya. And then appeared at IAEA conferences (still with Vera in tow) into the mid-late 1960s (at which point he disappears and my maths would put the Fedosimov of the 1940s at about public service retirement age (with a small caveat that I don’t know anything about Russian public Service).
And we haven’t even spoken about Danetta which (started mildly interesting but) quickly descended into all sorts of extraordinary ideas (that mainly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the tool that was used to analyse the code). I forget which site it is, but it presents a number of results to common ways of looking at things (initials, every 2nd word etc) and we some how mashed all the results of these together and were surprised that they sort of related to each other (I forget the details, but it seemed at the time a low point for the site). Then we demonstrated that choosing letters carefully from other passages of text (from memory one in the Rubaiyat, and one from a psalm) we could make Danetta appear everywhere. Of course, it was pointed out that we wad made up some random way of selecting numbers (compared to his random way which was to basically find all the letters as initials and then try to justify them all having a number from 1 to 7 based on their location on the line (but this wasn’t even in the correct order…..so the D might have come from the 6th word on line 3 reading backwards, while the A was the 3rd word on the 8th line reading forewards). Even those among us unfamiliar with cryptography would appreciate that when you make up your own rules you can do all sorts of things – especially when E,T,A are the 3 most common letters in the English language, N is 6th and D is in the top 10 (this is based on ETAOINSHRDLU – some people have the ordering a little different). Granted, that order changes if we limit ourselves to initials (I know I said before we did, but I’m doubting that a little now).
So others who disagree with me can go chase whatever fanciful tales others might propose, but for mine that’s a rabbit hole I don’t see any value going down. So if something meaningful is found at some stage then maybe I’ll revisit. Perhaps if some satisfactory explanation can be made for the big “code” writing that the microcode appears in (sorry, double-bluff does not make sense – at all. If you’re spies you’re trying to hide things from people who probably know your methods to some degree. Anything that looks even remotely suspicious (like a whole bunch of WRGOABABD) is going to be so heavily scrutinised that you’re not hiding anything in there. What will happen when the enemy can’t decrypt the random? They will keep analysing.).
Short Version: Yeah, Nah.
NB: I just found there’s a steam user called Carl Juna 1 who comes up when you google WRGOABAD. It seems their BIO is a (semi-redacted, and slightly incorrect) of the SM “code”.
Tamara Bunke: honestly, it is that simple, whatever GI Joe likes to noisily claim.
sorry – that Danetta paragraph (maybe the whole post) is even more bumbling than usual (and uses the “we” voice at one point to describe the site, and in the following sentence me….).
It also makes the mistake of talking about Boxall’s writing. I meant the Jestyn’s of course.
re-Pete: James Tyson was the name on a union ticket found in a dead man’s pocket, all that there was to identify an unknown drover found drowned in a billabong of the Darling river near the town of Bourke in the early days of settlement. This well known yarn is of course the first of many contained within a book of short stories by the great Henry Lawson and there are many SM elements to it including a hastily arranged funeral in which the Salvation Army officiates. There was realisation by the respectful town folk that only a set of initials J.T. and an added RC were clear on the union ticket, the full monicker made up merely to give the poor bloke a name to accord with Catholic funeral rites. In a final note for his readers, the narrator admits to having known the man’s name but to mention it would take something away from the importance of his union theme…So to cut a long story short MATE, one of the titles you’re wanting to identify on Alf Boxall’s book shelf, is a volume of Henry Lawson’s short stories entitled ‘While the Billy Boils’, another being by an unknown author John ??, entitled ‘Long River’, which is presumably about a well loved mostly dry river bed called the Darling which runs through the town of Bourke in far western N.S.W…., as per the yarn.
HAMLEY BRIDGE…was the old S.A. railway works and gauge switch town known for its dirt poor Irish Keane clan and the empiracle Duffields either side of the tracks.
HENLEY BEACH…was once renowned for it long ocean pier, motor rail terminus and unfathomable Thomson of Main/Marlborough St. Adelaide ad connections.
HARLEY BURCH…was the US born ring leader of an Australia wide flim flam and standover operation. He was Prospers mentor and best man at his wedding.
HARRY BELLAFONTE…was of a much better likeness with Somerton Man than Pavel Fedosimov, whatsmore they were the same shade from the crotch down…
Is there a case to be made or rested as a consequence of these stark similarities.
regarding the sand…..
SAPOL facebook page has a picture of the beach a little further South (they’ve labelled it Brighton/Seacliff). You can see the sand is a harder damp texture all the way to the rocks.
http://facebook.com/SouthAustraliaPolice/photos/a.147239112020106/3565433253533991/
Even this one of Henley Beach shows very little soft dry sand
http://abc.net.au/news/2020-11-20/police-issue-handful-of-fines-on-first-day-of-sa-lockdown/12901282?fbclid=IwAR01f-bls8lMBkk5VTs6h6piKfpRRvXNCKhxOPv6HttKABLSIJKpy4ziD4w
For those not in Australia, Adelaide has gone to hard lockdown after a sudden cluster of Covid (which it’s emerging today may have been an overreaction because one of the people traced lied about their activities)
…..Duffields were dynastic as well as impirical…many thanks to Flash Gordon.
Milongal, thanks for your extensive and thorough cryptobabble-debunker post above: that’s it in a nutshell. It’s a large shell, by necessity. With the emphasis on “nut”.
This story has some similarities with that of Buster Crabb, a Royal Navy frogman and MI6 diver who vanished during a reconnaissance mission around the Soviet cruiser Ordzhonikidze, a Soviet cruiser berthed at Portsmouth Dockyard in 1956. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Crabb
Hi Fred – interesting point. Where do you see particular similarities? And what conclusions could you draw from them?
Crabb’s body was mutilated beyond identification… and Tim Binding’s rather excellent fictional account of Crabb’s life (‘Man Overboard’) takes advantage of that very fact to deliver a startling denouement.
Bryon – thanks so much for responding to my question, especially since it was informed but nothing but a vague curiosity.
Apart from one archive excursion on Nick’s behalf, I’ve read nothing about the SM except what Nick has published here.
Very kind of you.
FRED: Drawing the Crabbs is a bit of a buster if you want to know the truth. The lads over yonder @My Name and @Byron Deveson need to know the guts on the ’47 phone book of which Feltus gives us a brief gander in the ‘Dancing with the Dead’ doco of 10/19 at ABC Aunty channel. Interesting to me is that only six J. Thomsons are listed with only the one J.E. which of course is our sister Jo. With the population of Adelaide at the time being up around 400 hundred thousand I thought we might have had more, though everything seems to be in order.
That’s interesting JS – S&M (1948) has 7 J Thomson (J, JA, JC, JM, JM, JN, JS ) – and doesn’t seem to have her or Prosper (but we already knew that). It also has 3 Mrs J ThomPson, 1 Miss J ThomPson and too many J ThomPsons for me to count).
But I know we are cautious about S&M
JS, so it was the 1947 Adelaide telephone book? And Jessie was listed as “Sister JE Thomson”? That is a major change in the “narrative”. So Jessie was living in Adelaide, at the Moseley Street address? Phone numbers weren’t transportable in the 1940s, even the 1960s, unless you were well connected (sorry, unintentional). Only crooks and SP bookies, or people who could bribe PMG technicians could transport a phone number.
If Keane knew Jessica as Harkness in 1946, assuming he was the father of Robin, how did he find her in another city where she was known as Thomson a year later?
… and thanks for the phone number heads up, Sanders.
Bearing in mind that there was a severe shortage of Thomson organized crime family contenders in our Glenelg of the 1940s according to published 1947 phone listings, it is nevertheless refreshing to note a few more elligible suspects in the corresponding suburban residency/ownership? data recorded by S & Mc. One such address which I recall well is the Methodist Church cnr. Bath & James streets which was found to have been in occupation of Sisters J & E Thomson in 47/48 which, as can be seen on the Glenelg map, is handily located just three hundred metres or so from 90a Moberley St., an address associated with Sister J E Thomson and her future husband Prosper (George) in 1947/48.
Pete, are you assuming that Jess and Keane were not in contact over the course of the intervening period?
If so, on what basis?
For peace of mind, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to check with the FBI data bank to to confirm they still maintain the initial SM fingerprint reading and resultant search request of 1948, submitted by Sydney CIB at behest of Sapol. They must have in their supplementary records millions from post war European countries including civilian ID card thumb prints that would have been separate to those in indices kept for their own partials, SOC singles and full print criminal case comparisons.
Peteb: Perhaps as of July ’47, and by then a single unsupported mother, Jessica filed a paternity application against Keane the alleged father, who then as a consequence would have obtained the plaintiff’s return of service particulars, which of course he was lawfully entitled to as respondent. That would work.
Tamara … because she bolted, first to Vicco then to SA, changing her name in the process. John Sanders .. why would she raise a PA, presumably in the name of Harkness, then do the runner as per above ?
Peteb: Jo may have had fears that SM would harm her and her unborn child. Giving him her post natal Glenelg address in the PA was used as a set up for the ambush. I am assured from a most knowledgable informant that the Thomsons moved to 104 Partridge Street after their Perth Knot tieing event and birth of Kate, details of which I might be prepared to expand upon in due course.
There is one big obstacle to the murder theory, and that is the extraordinary risks taken with the body. Generally you’d think the most pressing concern after a murder is to dispose of the body without leaving traces or being seen. Almost anything is better than driving to a beach at night and dragging a body to a public beach and playing around to pose it. The risks are insane. All this activity in the dark where it’s hard to check for dropped items, or a witness out walking.
If it was a murder then it was highly unusual.
Simon, yes – this is the total elephant in the room that unfortunately also feeds into some of the wilder conspiracy theories around spies and stuff (“it’s a warning to others”). Very much the Smiley’s People school of in medias res opening chapters. But of course, in the novel, the victim (Vladimir, a Balt dissident emigré – which ties in nicely with some thoughts @Milongal has just shared) was plugged and left in situ. Because the right people will know they’ve been warned regardless.
I’m guessing that a criminologist or criminal psychologist could probably shed some real insight on body deposition, posing, etc. that would swiftly curtail some of the flights of fancy we witness around this case.
You do wonder* why the SM ecosystem seems reluctant to draw in expertise sometimes.
*) no you don’t.
Simon: I think you’ll find that nobody want’s to talk about the alternatives these days; of which of course there are only two (related) and that’s precisely what the smart money was on with the police and judiciary in 1948/49.
Simon: it is a problem of conditional probability. If someone handled the body, it is very probable that it was a murder, because, as you pointed out, it is a risk playing with corpses and a few people besides a killer would take that risk. So, what are the probabilities that someone tampered with the scene before the official discovery of the body at 6:30 am? Well, the SM was clean, shaved, tidy, had quite expensive clothes, a couple of recently bought tickets in his pocket, a lunch in his stomach and… no wallet and, most surprisingly, no money. That is quite exceptional and begs for a good explanation. The most simple explanation is that someone took his wallet after his death and before the corpse was found, that is someone searched the body, but gently, because the cigarette was lying on his collar, his clothes were not in disarray etc. As stupid as it sounds, I want to point out that if he died naturally or committed suicide, he could not have lost his wallet, unless someone else disposed of the corpse, but that someone else would have taken a big risk disposing of a corpse he/she did not kill.
We mustn’t ever forget that our body was found dead in the open with no signs of foul play in evidence and who before expiring seemed to have had knowingly exposed himself to post mortem pilferage. This might have taken the form of an early morning bather, a pair of local hoops out excercising their steeds, a beach scavenger down on his luck perhaps, or any other opportunistic passer by. Even a first attender plod may have been tempted to forego his sworn duties, seeing no reason to deny himself a few unwanted shillings or a note or two and a decent set of cuff links for the sake of civil propriety…
I recall making past mention on another CM thread apropos Polish immigrant Nick Wojnicz, a Risdon Zinc company employee who had died alone in his hut of natural causes and was believed to have funds enough for a funeral in his possession. Polish workmates saw the local constable enter the one room shanty purportedly to take a mandatory death house inventory, remaining for about ten minutes or so unaccompanied. The lads were later surprised to learn that no money or other redeemable goods were found amongst their friend’s few meagre possessions NB.Taswegians oft refer to their police as ‘the filth’, perhaps for jolly good reasons. it seems.
The missing wallet does seem most likely pinched, but presumably it was in another pocket to the rest of his stuff (otherwise that’s some careful pilfering to have left all of that in tact (none of it accidentally spread to the beach). That sort of suggests there might have been sufficient light by that time (not only to notice the body, and the wallet, but to get to the pockets without leaving too much a trace). I think many moons ago Džons suggested that it was the jockeys – and certainly they or Lyons seem the most plausible – they were the first on the scene that morning after light, and it sounds as the beach might have been too busy for someone to had done it the night before (if we have daylight as a criteria) – of course that assumes the body was there already. That said, the latest suggestion not to exclude the coppers is reasonable too – they have the advantage of potentially being able to do stuff when people aren’t looking (or even going through things in plain sight without anyone noticing what is going on)
……., and in a bit of dramatic breaking news, seems there was a fire at the Strapps Woodlands Park home Xmas eve 1947 with extensive damage sustained to William Reginald’s two autos, with recently demobilised son Kenneth Gordon, having both of his motor bikes trashed and mum’s Speedwell pushbike likewise beyond repair. Fire was believed caused by bags of lime (for body disposals) ignited due to water exposure.)…One fine family’s not so Merry Xmas.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/402584489187
Is this it?
@all … @Anna… could be? Could we ask the seller to provide some images of the ROK? What do we need? The colophon? The Tamam page?
From memory it was a 1st edition, with no publishers mark/watermark on the back page (at least that’s what everyone seemed to say…..I’ve always thought the picture of the booklet with the ripped page has a fairly clear mark shining through).
Maybe have a look at this post from 2016:
https://ciphermysteries.com/2016/06/21/the-search-for-the-somerton-mans-rubaiyat
milongaI: Frankly I can’t see any publishing mark coming through, but if the Freeman ROK edition was of composite make up comprising a backing and a separate glued page for the text, then that wouldn’t work. I’ve always been confused as to why there were so many variation in the Courage & Friendship varieties marketed in the 40s and I think this points to knock offs.
@all – first edition (1851), as it is the only one which ends with the words TAMAM SHUD (second, third and fifth editions ends with just TAMAM). There are some deluxe reprints which include the first edition alongside some later edition.
About the wallet and the chance of murder: as I said it is a matter of conditional probability. If the scene was pristine, the case for a murder would be very dim, since a murder requires some interaction with the scene that a suicide or a natural death do not. So, the fact that the scene appears to be contaminated raises the chance for a murder, that is clear.
A pilferage as an explanation for the missing wallet is a silver bullet only if you believe that it must not have been a murder. Because, really, there were some extraordinary circumstances, if that was a common theft, e.g.: the surprisingly tidy and clean scene, the fact that the thief took the whole wallet, the fact that the thief left the cigarettes.
About the first point, I already noted that the thief must have been extremely gentle, since the cigarette was not shaken from the collar of the coat. Some of you said that the theft happened during daylight, so that the petty criminal found the right pocket without searching. However that is easier said than done, since there are not many pockets where a man usually keeps his wallet: the internal left pocket of the coat or the right back pocket of the trousers. They are both problematic. The back pocket for obvious reasons. The left internal pocket is problematic because the thief was most probably right-handed and so he (assuming he was a man) had to use his less dexterous hand or to open the coat or both (and maybe even after rigor mortis kicked in). The SM was a tidy guy and, probably, right handed so I doubt that he could have used other pockets for his wallet.
About the second point, a thief would care only about the money (and secondarily about useful stuff like a watch or cigarettes): the ID card, the ration card, the driver licence, even the wallet would have been a problem to him. If a policeman finds that you have two wallets, he could get suspicious, you know. A real thief would have taken just the money or would have thrown away the chaff as soon as possible. Our putative thief took the wallet and either did not throw away the dangerous stuff or he was so good at disposing of that stuff that nobody recovered it. However you put it, it is a bit strange.
Moreover, the thief left the good quality cigarettes of the SM. Well, maybe he did not smoke, even though in 1945 72% of adult males were smokers in Australia, or did not have time to search and the cigarettes were in a different pocket than the wallet.
In the end, I think that there are not easy explanations to what happened.
@Stefano – like so many things with SM, any simple explanation is problematic, andy complex explanation even more so…..
Perhaps there was a coat (with wallet) somewhere (possibly even left somewhere obvious and gone missing. I’ve often said the tickets bug me in a similar vein. A common assumption is he arrived into Adelaide by train that morning, yet despite not keeping a ticket from that train he has kept both a bus a train ticket from subsequent activities (and that’s without pointing out that it’s difficult to explain both of them appearing to have been used). So we assume either the inbound train ticket was discarded (I find this unlikely – he’s kept the useless Henley ticket, but gotten rid of a ticket for a train he presumably had to hold onto until he arrived) or it was in the missing wallet (possibly more likely, but still seems odd that the Henley ticket would simply be thrust into his pocket if he went to the effort of storing the longer journey in his wallet – although I suppose we could make a case that that’s because of the abruptness of his plan changing from Henley to Glenelg).
Some days it’s hard not to lean toward the idea that everything on him was planted
@JS I’ll seeif I can find a link to the triangle – I’ve definitely seen a version where it’s quite obvious, but on the ones I’m finding now I might just be imagining it….
Stefano: I don’t wish to be picky but novices will need to know that Fitzgerald’s first edition was actually 1859; As for the rest, you have obviously put some effort into your ideas on the unlikely crime scene choice for murder or suicide, preservation thereof to aid investigation &c. Of course we have the very real possibility that the body was interferred with by a pickpocket or even a skarlarking youths who would dare to show bravado in front of fellow miscreans. An amateurish all over frisking of the pockets for goodies, if such occurred would likely leave clothing mussed up and undesired pocket contents strewn about which was not the case, eg. smokes, tickets, combs and gum. The body was found to be sans some other effects that one might expect had it been left alone, such a hat, belt and accoutrements in the form of watch (wrist or fob) rings or even cuff links that y’man should have worn with the type of shirt he was wearing. Crikies so many unanswered questions and no way of getting such answers without original MO records. Even worries about SM not retaining his incoming train ticket would disappear had it been known that he was covered by government travel warrant e.g., a released ward of the state or even a serviceman on transfer or furlough.
Milongal: I’ve seen the black triangle with ‘A /W&T//Art Production ala Paris/In The/ The Spring on Sue d’Nihn’s knock off copy at Cramer’s highjacked Anemptyglass site.
Going back to the risks of disposing of the body, I agree with Stefano’s comment about conditional probability. The risky disposal of the body presents a problem for the murder theory, but all theories have problems right now. So I didn’t mean to say it’s a decisive thing, just pointed out that the murder idea would need to be pursuasive in other areas.
Simon, Stefano, Sanders, Milongal, others – having re-read this comments thread (conditional probability, forensic contact, pilfered wallet, David Lytton, king tide), how about this:
The man’s name is Keane. He committed suicide by ingesting digitalis prior to 4.50am, 1 December 1948, before an opportunist thief relieved him of his wallet (if he had not disposed of it earlier, in keeping with his wish to quietly). The high tide that morning altered the crime scene, including by washing away any evidence, e.g. a container, of the medicine he had taken and (for Pete’s benefit) any matches he may have used to light his last cigarette.
Tamara Bunke: you’d also need to include a funky explanation for the lividity, like Derek Abbott does. And the missing hat. And the missing socks.
I’m pretty sure that the tide was really high that night – high enough to really soak him through. Which I don’t believe anyone at the time said was the case. Perhaps you can correct me on this.
Nick Pelling: I’m pretty sure if the tide was high enough to soak him through, his shoes would have been the first to suffer immersion, which would have substantially diminished their lustre.
Nick: I can’t recall any specific mention of tide in the reports. Certainly not in association with the crime scene itself. But then again, the record does not suggest any of the investigating authorities thought the scene was in any problematic. That’s a much more recent phenomenon.
Remind us about the socks: we know there were no spares listed in the suitcase contents. So, he had no spare socks… doesn’t have to be unusual.
Was he not wearing any when found?
Pete: good point. But: a high tide would not have to “soak him through”, as Nick describes it. And there was no mention of immersion in the reporting.
But, if he was lying on his back and the water only “lapped at him” to a depth of a few centimeters, then only the very back (at the heel) of his shoes might have had contact with it. However, the motion of these ‘waves’ may have been enough to wash away any small pieces of evidence, such as a container for poison.
TamarA: Have a close look at the shoes in the colour snap, especially around the eyes and flaps. There is signs of glue parting indicative of probable earlier water saturation. By the way the metal shoe eyes are a dead give away to cheap quality as opposed to ‘bespoke 204’ that traditionally put SM on higher social standing,, than deserving. PS: In Greenwood’s list there ar four pair of socks, as for Nick’s problems with lividity, my explanation for it is reasonable enough, only obstinance has prevented discussion so I’ll let it pass.
From day one there has been much taken for granted about SM’s shoes having maintained their mirror shine despite the conditions likely encountered during the course of his last twenty four hours. This would seem to include the long distance covered to arrive at his final destination including contact with sand and sea, which might not have been so detrimental to their shine if that had been the case. Kiwi polish’s claims of keeping lustre against weather and environment are well known due to secret weather and grime resistant waxes being in it’s formula and note the company is still out there to back it’s reputation. We don’t actually know how far the dead man walked on the day though of course we will continue to debate this mute point along with the effects of incoming and outgoing tides on everything from lividity, damage to the crime scene, washing away of hats, matches and the effects of salt water on leather which, as pointed out might not be so dire due to water resistant properties in the polish.
Even one centimetre of water would have soaked almost everything, his socks, his trousers, his coat, his underpants… the interior of his brown leather shoes. To dry clothes off, you need sunshine or wind, but the SM was sitting on them: the back of his clothes should have been soaked with water and coated with damp sand when they found him.
Moreover I suspect that waves strong enough to wash away a tin container (for the lethal drug) would have moved around enough grains of sand to fill his shoes. Well, probably even waves not strong enough to move a tin container would have moved enough sand to fill his shoes.
Stefano: At around 7.00am when Constable Moss searched him, he found the deceased to be ‘cold stiff and damp’ according to his later testimony. It was stated by another witness at the inquest, probably J. B.Cleland, that there was sand in the shoe welts, not enough to fill them but to be fair, that came from an examination of the death apparel after the fact. I’m in agreement re likely ripple effect following the early morning king (spring) tide which we have debated here and there with no resolution to date.
Tamara Bunke: I covered this a little back in 2013. On 1st December 1948 in Somerton Beach, the high tide (9ft) was at 4.34am, which was 8 feet higher than at low tide. The sun rose at 4.56am, and the moon rose at 4.51am (it was a New Moon, hence a very high tide).
https://ciphermysteries.com/2013/11/12/somerton-man-last-24-hours
Tamara Bunke: yes, the Somerton Man was indeed found wearing socks. The problem is that even though his suitcase had clothes for several days, it (apparently) had no spare socks. Which, if he was planning on spending his time in Adelaide walking around beaches in the blazing sunshine, was arguably a tad odd.
Of course, we can’t rule out the possibility that he might have habitually washed his (only pair of) socks in the sink every evening. But where’s the fun in that?
Somewhere I had a rant about “unseasonably warm”, and pointed out that while 30 Nov wouldn’t have been unseasonably warm by Adelaide standards, Dec 1 was a warm day, and it appears that the overnight temp probably didn’t drop below 20C (which is warm, but probably not unseasonable in the context).
So I suppose the question is whether 20C (I can’t remember the exact number (19.7 is in my head for some reason)) overnight, possibly with mild breezes (I’d have to double check) would be sufficient to leave a body “cold and damp” (as opposed to “a touch on the soggy side” in about 2 hours (I suppose we could push it toward 3 hrs as the evidence is from the Moss rather than Lyon or the Jockeys).
Remember, in Adelaide, the beach face WEST, and there are sand dunes (and buildings) on the foreshore, so if the sun appears over the Eastern horizon at 4:56am (I’m not sure what the official definition of “sunrise” is), a body against the seawall might still have been in shadow at 6:30am (given he’s right up against the rocks, I could imagine that still being shaded as late as 10AM). Granted once the sun is up it’s starting to warm, but I guess the point is he wouldn’t have been in direct sunlight at any time – so air temperature and movement would be all that would dry him out.
All of that said (and we’ve danced around this several times I think), I would expect the shoes (and the rest of his clothing) to have salt stains once they dried out if they had been in sea water – and from the pictures we’ve got, they don’t appear to.
I find it hard to resolve him not having gotten wet if he was on the beach before high tide, but equally I’m not entirely comfortable with the state of his clothes if he had been there – but there’s a very short window for him to be dumped there after the tide has retreated enough (to the point it’d almost implicate the jockeys – which I think at one stage JS might have floated as a possibility). Not sure whether it’s easy to load a body inconspicuously on a horse (like they do in Westerns)…..
If he was planning to wander around beaches, wouldn’t he take his suitcase to Glenelg, with the intention of staying somewhere nearby?
What if all the station stuff appears to work so neatly only because one or more of the people involved fudged their evidence to suit the narrative (I don’t even think it has to be sinister – an analyst is asked to demonstrate something in court with a particular end goal, so they make the demonstration fit what they’ve been told to prove, eg:
1) What if the Henley Ticket was sold on 29/11 (or any other day), but the ticket clerk in looking into figures he’s made a mistake. He explains the process that makes it possible to resolve the ticket to a particular day, and insists the ticket was definitely bought on the 30th (which inadvertently causes a skew to within the duration of his shift that day (ie before 6 and 12 – or whatever it was).
2) What sort of records does the bus conductor keep of trips? Is it possible he’s muddled up with a different trip – or even a different day?
3) What if the luggae was dropped at a later time? How much of the timeframes given around the luggage are borne by the assumption it happened before the 11:15 bus for St Leonards left? (If they had the records, looking up ticket tags with sequences before and after this one might have given some more detail).
Standard rambling digression:
Something about the train I had previously dismissed (dismisse dit multiple times for different unrelated reasons) occured to me. It revolves around Jetty Road Grange. In the past, I’d made the point that he’d caught a train to Henely, not Grange, so the Jetty Rd was a total coinky-dink. But that was in a modern-day mindset (where there’s a Grange train). The train ticket (AFAIK) is not stop-specific, so the thought he remembered “Jetty Road”, “Starts with G” and goes to ticket clerk asking about it. The ticket clerk (who deals with trains, not the entire metro network) thinks of Grange, and sells a Henley ticket. Somehow SM figures out his mistake and gets the bus toward Glenelg. Subsequently, the clerk doesn’t recall selling the ticket – because although it was sold for the Henley Line, he remembers it as a ticket to Grange (and the detectives seem quite focused on Henley in their inquiries so he assumes they couldn’t be talking about the Gent looking for Jetty Rd).
Nick: You are right as usual, no fun at all. Especially so if your pair of socks are thick knitted wool like SM’s and expect them to be dry by morning
If I remember correctly, the Somerton Man had no water in his lungs when he was found.
I’m thinking that most folks familiar with the description given for Somerton Man is fairly well accepted as being well and truly written in stone by now, accept possibly for the hair colouring which differed somewhat in early press releases by reporters going by what was given to them by police or others who may not even have seen the body. The height for instance of 5’11 has remained the same since day one, which for 1948 would suggest a man a deal taller than the average of around 5′ 8″. We are not to know how the original height was calculated, or indeed if it was accurately done by measuring or merely a guesstimate by someone like constable Moss for instance.
Most would, I’m sure agree that the two most knowledgable authorities on the body’s physical attributes in it’s death state and also without any doubt, the most impressive of all the inquest witnesses, were a pair of highly qualified pathologists in the form of Drs. John Dwyer and Prof. John Cleland. Both would have had the good fortune of seeing him close up at different stages of his lengthy time lying in state at West Terrace mortuary. Dwyer, who did the autopsy on 2/12/48, in his opinion, had his subject as being of ‘tallish’ stature and left it at that which could mean between 5′ 9″ and say 6′ 00ft; whereas Cleland could only come up with a non committal ‘to be advised’ which seems almost is if he were not satisfied with
5′ 11″ at all.
Rick A. Roberts: Yes. No water in the lungs, so we can take it from that that he was not subject ro complete imersion whilst alive which we assume was never in doubt. That not withstanding there was sand in the hair which is deserving of some consideration, bearing in mind that there was little if any onshore wind that evening. Most people seem to be happy that the body’s position was as described, that is to say raised of the beach proper with legs on the sand pointed seawards, with the upper body raised and supported by the seawall. Two eyewitnesses in the form of Jack Lyons and Neil Day dispute this and I’m more impressed by both their naysaying as opposed to all the conveniently acceptable hypbole only works if the late on the scene Moss version applies. So to be realistic, if Somerton Man was found ‘flat out on the sand looking skywards’, having sand in his hair then that is easy to account for.
PS: The age old mystery surrounding lividity to the upper back and neck ceases to become such a mystery at all if the man had being lying belly up on beach when tidal undertow was shifting sand beneath him before dawn.
A thought:
When American GIs arrived in the UK in the early 40s, they were – by all accounts – physically imposing specimens, revealing the effects of a richer diet of proteins etc.
I’m not familiar with the standard of the Australian diet at the time, but if Sanders is correct about the average height of 5’8″, then that might suggest it was similar (in quality) to the British.
I wonder, therefore, if SM’s height and athletic build are further indicators that he was American.
Though the lamentable condition of his teeth is perhaps surprising for an American?
@JS: Have you got the Thomson brothers handy somewhere? Could any of them have had initials R.J.C? I remember them having sort of interesting middle names and/or aliases…..I think there was a Rolls Burrowes Thomson……but that doesn’t seem to help.
NB: If there’s someone more distantly related (but still with surname Thomson) that might be interesting too
NB2: This very loosley relates to an old (about 2018) conversation here in response to the post that he might have been an Odd Fellow – if anyone wants to revisit the stuff we trudged through there….
Basically I have an R.J.C. Thomson a few doors up from W.G. Duffield’s home that I want to dismiss as pure coincidence
Tamara: Not sure whece you arrived at your figures re average heights, but my low level research suggests the average Yanqui, Tommy and for that matter your tall bronzed Anzac was fairly close at 5’7″ to under 5’9″. Quite a deal taller that say their Soviet comrades and soon to be vanquished, blond haired blue eyed Arians at around 5′ 6″. Body mass and corresponding build derived from higher ptotene diets like steak & eggs would have tipped scales for the GI’s as opposed to typical kippers on toast for the Brits, tripe & peas for diggers, (fsh’n chps for Kiwis) and borshe & bulgar for Boris, must surely have had baring on weight and stature. accordingly, though statistics are a little hazey.
You’re therefore probably spot on with SM’s Yanqui origins, stuff the teeth he lost them as a POW, and don’t forget Ugo Pozza’s feather stitched coat from Brooks Bros USA, the Wrigley juicy fruit gum from White Plains NY and the non Bradford PA fake Zippo lighter.
Another thought: it has been expressed before how difficult it must have been for SM to maintain such a solid, well-fed physique without having the use of so many of his teeth, remembering that Cleland (?) had the view that what teeth remained in his mouth showed no abrasive signs of supporting a cumbersome set of false teeth.
Anyhow, we don’t have to worry about all those dietry variables to have a good crack at where the man from Somerton Beach came from originally, certainly not Sydney or Melbourne, for we can expand on that with simple genetics sequencing kindly supplied through most and unselfish efforts of Peteb’s close and informed expert and retired scientist Byron Deveson. Without having to tackle the ever changing mathematical equasions relative to DNA footprints in the sands of time and so forth, it can be now shown with absolute certainty that the sample hairs removed from Paul Lawson’s bust by Prof. Derek Abbott years ago, is 97 percent Caucasian. The facts indicate that ancestors of Mr. 97 percent, left a cold North Atlantic region (Balkans?) before the last ice age travelling slowly but surely towards the promised land of Virginia on the east coast of the Americas where they settled. In time and after a little harmless gene play with the very last of the Mohicans they called themselves the Jeffersons and the world bacame their oyster of opportunity. That’s how I see it in a nutshell, much the same as old mate Keith Mangnoson, only trouble being that his man who came in from the cold was Carl Thomson and not Thomas Jefferson aka. T. Keane; what a bummer!….
Peteb: From acting Det. Sgt. R. L. Leane in his Sworn statement ” There was no evidence that he had worn a denture”. The absence of anything coming close to your fanciful description including no ‘abrasive signs’ that you give for Clelend?, or any of the other deponents, point to one of two things which are perhaps best left unsaid. PS: I still maintain a solid well-fed physique for a man with less teeth than SM and I find pies and pasties succumb to good healthy gum mashing that never clog up me dentures.
milongal: There were five brothers Thomson; Adrian Ernest, Prosper McTaggart, Rollo Burrows, Gaston Charmers and Quentin in that order, all of them apart from Rollo who was killed in England ’43, dieing in the mid 90s I think…As for R.J.C. Thomson, I don’t recall him or any conversation connecting him to any W. G. Duffield. A Robert James Cunningham Thomson bn. S.A. circa. 1900 worked in a Melbourne munitions factory as a teen and died Adelaide 1953. There were two W. G. Duffields, William Geoffrey 1916/2005 & Walter Geoffrey 1879 who seem to have been part of the big land holding clan from Duffield/Hamley Bridge who were Druids.
Peteb: Question is, which be the biggest frustration, Cramer’s paredoic chimera for his nonexistant micro code or your similar delemma with frigging matches that for all we know were inadvertently overlooked by investigating police. Neither fantasy is likely to assist with modus operandi discovery or identification of Somerton Man.
John Sanders; page 14 … inquest papers, an addendum by Prof Cleland to John Matthew Dwyer’s deposition. The use of the word ‘abrasive’ is my interpretation.
Peteb: I therefore rest my case.
An inquisitive mind might ask what would be the benefit of planting a box of matches amongst the evidence.
Similarly, he/ she might ask if Strapps’ insistence on including in his deposition a description the particular type of clothing being worn by the man he was watching was because the policeman who was recoding his statement tried to talk him out of it. I ‘should’ say.
Then he\she might take another look at the witness account of seeing a man carrying a man along the foreshore on the night of the 30th … after that they may wish to consider the lividity question once more. Then they may ask themselves why would Harkness answer every question put to her by Det. Canney then refuse to answer every question put to her when viewing the bust.
Discussion on the case can be progressed …
I can’t see that there would appear to be any realistic links, nafarious or otherwise wortwhile pursuing with your 29 & 47 Barnes St. Magill neighbours Robert James Cunningham Thomson and Walter Graham Duffield?, both of whom were nearing their respective use by dates in 1948. Of course the William Graham Duffield bn. 1916 with nine mile sniper credentials in Libya and Moratai could well be your gun toter but it’s a tenuous toss up in any case for mine.
Peteb: You’re no doubt unfamiliar in the tactful art of taking witness statements. The deponent in this case, an ex naval rating familiar with authority, did not ‘insist’ that his ‘I shd say’ remark re striped pants be included in the manner you yourself insist. In fact the officer taking Strapp’s statement a day or so before the hearing was likely just going through a routine task of tieing in the cooperative young chaps observations with those of his female companion. Slight variations of two opinions can be expected, even preferred in some cases, so long as neither contradicts the other so seriously as to raise doubts or effect the weight of other issues needing deliberation…I might add that the habit of puting words in folk’s mouths that they didn’t say and second guessing their thoughts to suit one’s own whims does not, in my opinion improve chances of having the final word..
John Sanders: you talk about raising doubts but conveniently forget the doubts now raised given Leane’s deposition contradicted Moss’ and Strapps’ contradicted the coroner’s findings.
And you seem to be having a problem differentiating between objectivity and subjectivity.
In addition, I am no stranger to the due processes of giving a formal statement and making sure the typewritten result was precisely what I wanted it to be. Otherwise I would not have signed it.
The fine folk from Catharactacus obviously aren’t raised on vegemite, finest gift to children for growing replenishable brain cells..In case soviet leaning Boris and his pinko comrades haven’t caught on, Jessica Thomson’s part in the case must have been seen as gift from the heavens for Sapol who were needing a lucky break in order to put an end to their delemma. The ex Sydney? nurse’s just-in-the-nick-of time deliverance culminated in the tieing up of all the loose ends needed to close the case, taking a mere two days to accomplish. The Boxall factor was cinsudered a plus, requiring interstate help which became in itself a means to an end for the nasty ROK deal and diverting attention away from Adelaide, thus allowing for a peacful closure to the whole sorry affair.
Thanks John – was hoping to get a car connexion.
The problem with the witness who saw a man being carried that night is that he appeared much later (possibly 1958?).
Can’t help but wonder if he was so certain that it was that night, why did he wait a decade to come forward? And if he was uncomfortable coming forward in 1948 or 1949 (or 1950, 51, 52…..) what changed in 1958 that suddenly he could come forward? Either he wasn’t certain he saw what he claims, or he wasn’t certain it was that night, or (going a little bit conspiratorial) he was closely enough related to the case that he thought something had changed by that time (e.g. a signifcant player had disappeared from the picture).
I’m ok with the concept of a body switch (or similar – there’s a possibility of coincidence – that someone was in roughly the same location the night before), but I wouldn’t be basing that too much on the witness who saw a body being carried unless we can satisfactorily explain why he took 10 years to come forward.
@milongal @sanders IIRC there’s some doubt as to where that sighting was made. The witness stated it was about level with “the dugouts”. But no one seems to be able to place their location.
We don’t, therefore, even know if this supposed sighting was anywhere near the crime scene.
Milongal: Feltus interviewed him and found him credible .. and when it comes to having to face a cop asking questions I’d say GF would be as tough as they come. His record in the homicide division is worth reading. He is a very hard man.
@Tamara I thought somebody was “…heading in the direction of the dugouts” (I can’t remember if that was the witness, or the OP (As I was going to St Ives…”).
We’ve speculated a lot about what the dugouts were and you’re right, nobody really seems to know. I’ve always assumed they were Brighton side of where the body was found
I do remember finding an old amusement parlour down Glenelg way called “Dave’s Dinkum Dugouts” (or similar) – it was burnt down some time before the SM story, but I think I’d hypothesised that if it had been sufficiently popular a local might still refer to it (for 80/90s kids the Beachouse will still be Magic Mountain, and Timezone in Hindley St was always Downtown (there was more than one Timezone on Hindley St, of course, but those who undestand will know).
How old was this bloke, and when did Feltus interview him – While he was still a copper, or while researching the book? Assuming it’s the latter (which might be an unfair assumption), it would’ve been somewhere after the turn of the century (I’ll say 2008) – 60 years after the fact….would’ve been getting quite old by then, you’d think – by which point I’d imagine it’s quite hard to gauge someone’s credibility (because our memory quite naturally morphs facts over times – literally neurons get rerouted to remember more important things).
If it was around 1978, we’re still tallking 30 years after the fact (so any memory drift between 1948 and 1959 has only been reinforced in your mind since coming forward).
I’ve lost my copy of the book (which is embarassing, because it’s digital), but did GF explicitly say they were a credible witness, or is that inferred by the fact it was included in the book?
milongal: as you know, Dave’s Dinkum Dugout (on Brighton Esplanade) burned down in 1927:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/129241217
There’s also a comment here from last May by, let me see, “milongal”:
http://ciphermysteries.com/misc-stuff#comment-405503
Personally I’m a little more convinced by Alfred Henry Bellman living in a dugout in 1943, again noted by a certain “milongal”:
http://ciphermysteries.com/misc-stuff#comment-405504
@NP: lol – you know sometimes I read that and think “I never said that”
Peteb: How do you rate your Feltus thoughts and assertions. Would you call them subjective, objective or based merely on heresay . Giving us a little sample of his work in homicide might give us an idea of just how tough and competent he was. That won’t likely help much with credibility issues for those that aren’t convinced by your brown nosing claptrap.
Neil Day the jockey boy impressed me with his recollections of Somerton Beach and environs. Seems Peteb has a surplus of Adelaide talent on his team that could tap into the old hoop’s wealth of local knowledge as to where in hell the caves and dugouts were located. Can’t see how it’s gonna help identify our man or send any bad guys to Yalatla for the term of their naturals….though.
milongal .. allow me to refresh your memory.
Taken from A Final Twist.
“On 5 December 1959 Detective Don O’Doherty received information from a businessman ….. etc”
“He (the businessman) can vividly remember the incident he reported (this is when GF interviewed him in about 2008) and recalls it was definitely on the evening prior to the body being reported in the newspaper”
“The next day (December1st 1948 ) the two sisters (both were with him at the time) discussed the incident with him and they thought the police should be advised.”
“They did not advise police because they believed the police would have already been advised by others.”
“He (the businessman) later married and after reading various stories about the Somerton Body he thought it may be of interest to the police so he decided to advise them.”
I’ll stick up a pic of the relevant pages from GF’s book over my way in a day or two …
It seems a few of Tbt’s best and brightest SM recruits totally misinterpreted the blind freddy clue that would seem to confirm Prosper Thomson having indeed been abscent from the scene during the days leading up to and a day or two after December 1st 1948. He didn’t re visit Auckland known to him as a second home to the Burch family crime syndicate, of which he was part pre war. it’s unlikely that Sydney or places further afield were intended, for his own people had moved north to the central coast an besides time was of the essencr. All that’s left really would be Melbourne, for the Holden unveiling and/or suburban Mentone to show off the ‘Toddler’ Robin to adoring grand parents. Or closer to home, Port Lincoln and even Broken Hill were towns familiar to him in his various shonky business ventures. Of course the deal being that the fake ads were posted to cover an intended period of abscence from Adelaide, one he did not wish to be public knowledge. No harm done to include addresses with phone numbers making for a stronger alibi, if down the track he’s needing proof that, “No officer, couldn’t have been moi, I was home at 90a Moseley you see”. A similarly devious lost ad scam in re a gold Tudor watch was put out about that time too.
Peteb: Time was, back at the start of his novel, when Gerry had finished giving his readers a short history lesson on WW2, he gave us those immortal words TORO TORO TORO; which may well have been his misplaced introduction to what then followed. So you can look up all you like; you’re only likely to see foggy foggy dew.
Actually I think it’s this one?
https://ebay.us/r7E7jS
Is there a definitive description anywhere?
This one matches the images that are circulating from the case files.
@Anna somebody (possibly (probably?) at the requestof the “Inner Sanctum”) did some fairly thorough delve into W&T Courage and Friendship Rubaiyats. (google Bob Forrest Rubaiyat)
The link you’ve posted appears to be hard cover (I think the one in question was a soft-cover pocket sized one)
“They did not advise police because they believed the police would have already been advised by others.” – I have a big problem with someone sitting on it for 10 years on that basis. What were these 3 up to that they didn’t wnat to involve themselves?
As a slight side, I’ma little uncomfortable with how quickly some of the things like that happened. On 1 Dec they wouldn’t have even known it was a police matter yet, would they? If the body is discovered AM 1 Dec, then it might be on the radio that day, but given even in the papers it began as a small “police are hoping to identify a body was found at Somerton” it seems unlikely they would even realise the guy was dead until the 2nd Dec (unless they happened to be at the beach again on the morning of the 1st). So while at first it sounds quite conclusive that they remember it being then, it seems to waver as you scratch it with some scrutiny…..
Yet another convenient Feltus businessman who doesn’t want to be named for discretionary reasons. Feed us another line Gerry, some dumb ass will swallow it, he usually does, especially when dealing with a fellow rumour monger. We might wonder where our shy businessman and his pair of tarts were headed; only dune dugouts beyond John Miller reserve and the yacht club pasties would have been off by ten right?.
@JS: A short time ago you made mention of the Somerton Man pin on Googlemaps being near Ferris rather than Bickford St. At the time I think I suggested someone had made a mistake – but looking at S&M the pin might be right.
1948 Northern Esplanade:
-walkley St-
13 Jacob E.C
Richardson L.H.
14 a Richardson S
– Ferris Ave –
15 Crippled Children’s Home
16 Moody, P.T.S
-Bickford Tce-
1949 Northern Esplanade
-walkley St-
13 McTaggart Mrs J D
Richardson L.H.
14a Richardson S
– Ferris Ave –
17 Crippled Children’s Home
15 Nunn D.A
16 Moody, P.T.S
-Bickford Tce-
NOTE: The numbering discrepancy is interesting, it does hint at the possibility of a mistake (in 1950 it is listed on the corner of Bickford, and today’s numbering has Ferris then 15,16 then 6 variants on 17 suggesting 17 was a big block on the corner of Bickford – which makes sense, having originally been the home of William Bickford)
So in the original picture of the beach, I always assumed the LHS was the cross street (I’d always assumed Bickford), but in fact it seems the RHS of the building would be Bickford).
NOTE2: The State Library of SA has a small collection (7 or 8 photos) of kids at Alvington from 1948. Not really much interest, although there is one of people sitting on the beach on what looks like a ramp rather than stairs – although it’s not clear whether that’s necessarily in from of Alvington (photo reference B 49044)
NOTE3: It’s likely nothing, but the McTaggart caught my eye
NOTE4: Gound a wordpress that among other things has some stories from people who had Polio as kids ini the early 1950s (and Alvington gets mentioned a few times). A picture from inside there (presumably from that era) is linked below….it’s likely just my mind playing a trick, but does the lady in the back look similar to anyone?
https://ifugointo.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/bader.png
Milongal: I think we’ll find that 15 and 17 were rated to Alvington and Douglas Nunn most likely was given the modern cottage for his physiotherapy work at the CCH next door. It’s likely that the beach ramp on Ferris was the main access for the kiddies due to the Bickford stairway’s having been rendered child proof, as photos of the period suggest. As for the historical Society’s placement pin (SM) on the Ferris St. Intersection with Sth. Esplinade, perhaps it was seen as being a more convenient way down to the original X site for those wanting to dig for Peteb’s missing matches, teeth and striped duds.
…..speaking of whom now has a new angle which relates to 1. SM having been a pedophile caught messing with the CCH kiddies and offed before then being respectfully placed alongside the busy? stairway as a warning to others with untoward intentions on kids in leg irons, or 2. SM was an investigating an alleged pedophile ring within the CCH management and offed before being respectfully dumped as a warning to others not into perverse fantasies. Thats seems to accord with the latest 2 part Tbt offering and I think there’s something Sister Thomson’s moblie number being written in indelible ink..my old eyes could be mistaken.
Ok, having had a closer look at the S&M’s I think what might have happened is that Alvington House was the first building in that block (and took up most of the block between Ferris and Madge (later Bickford)).
Either some of the property was sold off (or parts of the block never belonged to Alvington and was built on) and the S&M record keepers got confused as things started to get built their (around 1945) (I think this makes more sense if the land originally belonged to Alvington, rather than being vacant crown land, but that might be a moot point).
Oh, and just in case anyone though McTaggart was exciting, I think it’s the widow of JD McTaggart (originally of St Peters), whose daughter Gwen and Son Lachie seem to come up in trove a bit. Possibly a slight horse connection if that’s the avenue you come from, but otherwise not much interest….
Also stumbled across a P Thomson in Whyalla in the 1950s running sideshows at a fete, but I have a vague recollection that was mentioned (and dismissed) here recently.
@Tamara Bunke
Contacted the seller and the images I was provided with match the images the police put into circulation. Perhaps there is a connection between the Rubaiyat and the rest of The Courage and Friendship series.
milongal: I’m pretty sure that you came up with a 24a Jetty Rd. Glenelg address for Freeman Chemist on Sands & McDougal but I can’t locate it. Can you recall details?
@JS: Can’t remember coming up with that (I’ve found an indication on this site that it may have originally come from Abbott’s mudmap ), but having a look:
1948 Jetty Rd Listing (p209 in the digital):
There is no 24A.
24 is St V hotel, and next door (#30) is the National Fish Cafe (which I think we looked into at some length).
Alphabetical listing (pp901/902) has 8 J Freeman spread all over (closest I think is in Plympton).
Additionally:
Freeman-Chemist at 136 Fullarton Rd Rosefield
Freeman’s Chemist at Bank St Adelaide
1949 Jetty Rd listing (p222):
24 = St Vincents Bottleo
24A = Freeman Chemist
26 = Jasmine Beauty Salon
28 is St Vincents Hotel.
Alphabetical (p969) has 9 J Freeman (did I miscount?), also lists the following entries:
Freeman-Chemist at 136 Fullarton Rd Rosefield
Freeman’s Chemist at Bank St Adelaide
Freeman Chemists as 5 Bank St Adelaide
To me the St Vincent pub and bottleo being separate suggests a subdivision and/or strange numbering where there may have been a sublet of properties at the front of the property (according to googlemaps. #24 today is large and there is no 26 or 28 (or 24A))
I’m getting into the post SM period S & M books at long last and finding them as thrilling as a good John Le Carre (RIP) Smiley yarn. For instance who’d believe that Colin Freeman would end up living in a posh mansion less than fifty metres from X marks the spot at 2 Bickford. As for little brother John, any connection he may have had with a chemist at 24A Jetty Rd. Glenelg, was suspiciously brief and likely to have been well after the factif at all….The real purpose of my post is of course, to get instructions on speeding up the process for S & M reading if at all possible.
While the search capability in the SA books is a LOT better than it used to be, the Vic ones are better again (from memory they even support wildcard searches) – haven’t looked at them for a while, but I think I used to trawl through them when we were looking for Grrek Clubs and Baccarat schools….
On another subject: was his suitcase found locked or unlocked ?
Peteb: Simple HK centre slide bar not Cheney lever. Smart money has Hec Gollan slipping it with a square type bobby pin which he secreted in T. Keane’s green soap dish. Leane later claimed the case was unlocked when found to conform with legal property ceasure protocols. Cloakroom attendant was not called to attest due to a transfer to Port Augusta.
JohnS: where can I find Leane’s confirmation that the case was unlocked?
At long last starting to get the hang of S&Mc. though a bit like driving a wayward Somerton bus. Guess while the punters are figuring what year for the following, I’ll just be having lots of fun…24a to 28 Jetty Rd. says St. Vincent Hotel..90a Moseley St., no surprises here, J. Thompson..37 High St., C.Freeman…All I want for Xmas now is a free paywall pass into the Sth. Aust. genealogy.
….and not forgetting Freeman chemist at 62 Jetty Rd., backing onto the future Wenzel’s famous pasties second outlet, it made all the more famous for Jane Beaumont’s purchase with a soon to be phased out £1 note (more’s the pity).
Does that mean you are unable to confirm your claim, right?
Peteb: What I said about Hec rings a bell, if you’re seeking yet more dirt on the Leane team’s deception ploy; Alternately go to SM Ultimate Guide or if desiring visual stimulation try the Dark Histories pod thingo, both of which attest to an unlocked affair for what that’s worth….Ever consider put some effort towards an SM identification?. Sort of a sideshow I know but it’d be worth two points in footy terms and nothing to scoff at.
Absolute bloody guff … beats me how you get the exposure here. But then again, maybe I can. Sorry you were beaten on the Z cipher Dome, try to get over it, ok?
Guff Guff, I’m calling your bluff Bonzo. Give us a name that you’ve ever come with all by yourself.
There are two things about this case we will probably never know: who he was and the meaning of the code. This means the only way forward is by incremental means, one of which is trying to find signs that the police were in any way responsible for hiding his identity and purpose. You, on the other hand scoff at this approach without being able to offer anything but reams of babble.
I’m glad we are clear on this so I’ll get out of everyone’s way now, after all, this site is supposed to cater for the cipher people, perhaps you might give them a little space.
PB; SM can be identified. Dig him up. Get his DNA. Stick in database. Presto!
Peteb: I believe we will (eventually) know who SM was, but I would tend to agree that this remains a very steep hill to climb. As far as the code / acrostic goes, I think we could do a better job if we had a copy of the original photo (i.e. before it had writing on top of it) – and who’s to say that won’t suddenly turn up one day?
Off to the ‘far-carnal’ for a bit of R&R shortly… Looks as if Freeman moved shop to 24a JR in ’51 and they’re still there on last visit ’54. When they had FSMA chemist up the road they installed non family management including Physick, Lean and others through the 40s which accounts for Colin and John being at other locations as mentioned. As for J. Thompson with no E and spelt with a P. first showing at 90A Moseley looks to be ’55? and last check in ’58 they’re still insitu. As milongal will affirm, things can be a bit slow on the uptake with S & Mc, mostly on towards the staight name cross reference index which is a bummer.
Back on the job noting that Freeman chemist is gone from 24a Jetty Rd. by ’59 and 24 through 28 inc. has reverted to St. Vincents pub. Alternately J. Thompson remained in place at 94A from 1951 to ’60 should anyone be interested.
Perhaps the reason a pic of the code page has never been seen is that there is a name written on the back cover.
The original year for S&Mc Thompson occupancy and or ownership of 90a appears most likely to have been ’54 or ’55 (not ’51), and before from about ’50 was Sutton. From what we understand re Jessica’s phone phone connection to the address from at least mid ’47 to say ’49, it seems that our later J. Thompson may have been merely a simiar name entity though such an assumption should never be taken for granted by those few who are still crunching numbers.
JS: What year did it hae Thomson at 90A? I remember looking for that but never finding it (and assumed it was somewhere between unreliable updates and landlords vs tenants)
Bumpkin,
DA’s team has recovered about 2% of SM’s autosomal DNA from the hair sample and this, plus the identification of a rare genetic mutation (one in a million prevalence) that can cause ectodermal dysplasia, strongly suggests that SM can be identified with a bit of work. Years ago several people suggested that SM’s hypodontia, high raise calves and wedged shape feet pointed to ectodermal dysplasia. DA’s team has only released a few details of findings and judging from these IMHO they have a reasonable chance of identifying SM.
Most of us intellectually superior types would tend to agree with Peteb’s opinion of Gerry ‘da man’ Feltus’ standout oratory limitations with accompanying social skills of a soon to be forgotten president. However no one could deny the ex ace Sapol detective’s flare and imagination in puting together a ripping good yarn equal to the best. In his prime, lately departed spy novelist John le Carre could not come within a Lawson bust hair of our favourite old suit in combining humility and cunning like a lethal dose of digitalis and gucoscide. As for Mr. Feltus’ talent for deception and intrigue, we havn’t seen the likes since Bonzo Bowes’ own thrill a minute Bookmaker farce. So to repeat the words of the masterful histerical fiction writer…Toro Toro Toro!
Newly scanned old press copy suggests ‘sewn on’ (soviet) marking ink for the T Keanic tie labelling. This could well prove to be that single piece of irrefutable evidence of Leane’s deception needed to finally put this baby to bed. Great find Clive, best to you and Gordon for a great lockdown Aussie Xmas.
Bumpkin: I wouldn’ get wildly excited by a few unidentified hairs taken from the surface area of Paul Lawson’s SM bust. Main reason being that their location is more likely to point to an origin other than the sitter for those familiar with plaster of Paris casting technique. Those four hairs could identify with another body in the morgue, foreign hairs contained within contaminated powder base or even in floor dust blown up into the wet mix by a fan. My own pet theory is that they may have been post salon hairs commonly used to form part the pre pour shoulder binding. Cheer up old thing, your uplifting wishes are still viable and as you say, all the way with dna.
JS,
the DNA recovered from the hair carries a rare mutation, with a prevalence of less than one in a million, that can cause ectodermal dysplasia syndrome (EDS). Years ago several people commented that SM’s hypodontia, wedge shaped feet and high raise calves suggested ectodermal dysplasia.
I further note that this mutation can also cause “uncombable hair”, hair that tangles. Look at SM’s autopsy photos. Doesn’t SM’s hair look unnaturally unruly?
In case anyone cares….. Here’s some excerpts about Alvington from Holdfast Bay Historical society (who will happily look into stuff gratis (I think they might assume you leave them a donation, but there’s no pressure)). From memory I reached out to them re Alvington less than a fortnight ago).
The house was originally on land with a ‘Seawall’, now Esplanade, frontage of 165ft (50m) and extending 936ft (285m) east along Madge Terrace (later renamed Bickford Terrace) to Tarlton Street. 3.55acres (1.44 hectares) in total. It is recorded as being of two storeys, with a large number of rooms.
….
In 1936, the land was sub-divided into ten allotments. The house, on allotment 53, was sold to the then South Australian Crippled Children’s Committee in 1938. It began providing residential after-care treatment for children afflicted by polio in 1939, with accommodation available for up to 25 patients. The home continued to operate until it was no longer needed in late 1960s. The property was sold in 1976, and the house demolished.
Byron: Certainly wasn’t thinking on the possibilities of the dreaded ED Syndrome with various mutations effecting every part of the body including one that is apt to destroy hair follicles to bring on baldness. My original thinking about SM’s unruly locks was that he could have being wearing a rug which would throw a spanner in the works if proven. Thanks for the debriefing, I’ll have to re-evaluate my position.
It was noted at autopsy that the pupil of SM’s eye (eyes?) was smaller than normal and the edge was uneven. This suggests the condition iris coloboma and I have previously noted that this can occur with some types of connective tissue disease. For more details see:
https://tomsbytwo.com/2019/02/22/what-evidence-is-there-that-he-was-a-ballet-dancer/
I now note that iris coloboma is associated with some forms of ectodermal dysplasia. Iris coloboma is fairly rare (about one in two thousand from memory) so this association, coupled with the recent DNA results, strengthens the case for SM having some form of ectodermal dysplasia condition.
In addition I am now of the opinion that there can be overlap between Ectodermal Dysplasia syndromes and Connective Tissue syndromes. I caution that I have no professional standing in this area and it is an amateur talking, but I do have a dog in the fight and hence my interest in the matter.
I previously mentioned that SM’s abnormally smooth skin is an indicator of a connective tissue syndrome, Ehler Danlos syndrome. Judging from my investigations I believe that it is likely that there can be an overlap between Ectodermal Dysplasia syndromes (EDS) and Connective Tissue (CT) syndromes. The literature does not give any support for this association, but it is early days yet. This possible overlap is relevant here because SM displays both EDS and CT symptoms/features. And this overlap further improves the chances that the partial recovery of SM’s autosomal DNA from the hair samples can identify relatives of SM.
Paul Lawson noted the following features: EDS= Possible Ectodermal Dysplasia associated symptom. CT= Possible Connective Tissue syndrome symptom.
Limited body hair EDS
Abnormally smooth skin CT
High raise calves CT
Wedge shape toes CT
Athletic body type, wide and well developed shoulders and a narrow waist CT
The autopsy showed the following:
Small pupils and irregular pupil margins CT EDS
Hypodontia CT EDS
Skin abrasions between the knuckles EDS?
Later observations by various people:
Reversed ear cymba to cavuum ratio CT and EDS?
SM was over dressed for the proceeding day. Raynauds Syndrome CT
Jockey style underpants (rare in the day) Support for a large scrotum? CT
Unruly hair EDS
Note: EDS in this context refers to Ectodermal Dysplasia Syndrome, not Ehlers Danlos Syndrome (which is a Connective Tissue syndrome)
I have noted that some people with EDS also have the inverted ear cymba to cavuum ratio that SM has.
I am hopeful that this post will catch the eye of professionals with expertise in the area of Ectodermal Dysplasia or Connective Tissue syndromes because I believe that these conditions are the key to identifying SM from the limited DNA data.
Just 1 thing…. he wasn’t overdressed. It was a warm morning when they found the body, and it had been a warmish night, but the day before wasn’t all that warm. (pretty sure I’ve said this before) his attire wasn’t unusual given the weather on 30 Nov in Adelaide was under 25C (the night only dropped to 20C – which is a tad unusual in terms of the maximum, but not in terms of his attire).
The following morning was hot, hot, hot (from 20C it went to 36C (I could imagine 30C by 9 or 10 AM))
Forget the weather. I don’t know where it came from, but anyone who has lived an Adelaide summer would not think 25C is ‘unseasonably warm’ at the end of November. TBH even 36C on 1/1 isn’t that weird – although I’ll grant he was overdressed if he planned to still be there that day….
Slightly related (and also mentioned before) in that light it does bother me that G & O were at the beach to “avoid the hot weather” (or similar), but pretty sure I’ve said that before too.
NB: re the Jocks, I was talking to someone today (haven’t verified it yet) but they were saying Navalny was apparently poisoned through his jocks (I will look it up later, but I was surprised because I thought people were happy he had been poisoned by an earlier drink at the airport)…..
**NOTE: I’m quoting temperature from memory, some of them might be off by a couple degrees
Totally aside, I do wonder whether when people definitively identify a cryptographic algorithm used in a cipher text, they actually understand the cipher itself – or whether they’re just regurgitating stuff they don’t understand from a miracle cipher-solving website that has come up with an answer that is neither impressive, nor particularly unexpected (and I assume when you plug things into such a magic machine you also understand the output……like perhaps that it might be telling you the encryption matrix – which you’d expect to firstly be consistent, and secondly that you might somehow share that key…..)
Marginally more obviously…..if the #70 was added after Littlemore’s doco (whch I think isn’t challenged), Why TF would it have microcode in it? I get the addition of it itself is odd, but who TF is going to be able to read that micro? Boxall’s wife?
milongal: microwriting is a crock.
The Danetta code speaks for all true believers and Tibor Kaldor’s last cryptic words spoke from the heart of a man about to give up his miserable earthly existance for an eternity in a soviet inspired Valhala, namely West Terrace cemetery Adelaide, home of the greatful dead…So sayeth Cramer and his herd of faithless original deciples.
‘llusions’ was a ballet by Thaddee Slavinsky, inspiration for Joanna Preist’s ‘The Listeners’, first performed at Adelaide’s Tivoli Theatre November 30th 1948. Pure coincidence surely.
John, all… “The Listeners” premiere, and the Walter de la Mare poem it’s based on, is really bugging me. Was he in town for the show or because of it? Did he have, among his discarded effects, two tickets for it? Was he involved in some way in the production? Is there a link between the Rubaiyat code and Walter de la Mare?
Tamara: I went through all the possibilities some years ago. You don’t know the half of my frustrations, when all including our esteemed moderator thought I was nuts and encouraging others to think likewise. In the end I saw the truth for what it was likely to be ie., pure coincidence being the likely culprit including an alleged post 1945 Thadee sighting at a dance school in Panama by Dame Margo, then his relative showing up in Adelaide (looking for him ?) in 1946. By the way I also went through the lists of the 3 pre war Ballet Russes, found the stars who had remained behind with onset of hostilities and only came up with two possibilities, Slavinsky and Alexexandre Philpoff’s son (whatsisface), both of whom died apparently of illness in 1945. Went through all WdlM’s short ghost stories plus weird beautiful poetry for a lead to the code and came up with nada. The memory keeps me up at night, but alas there’s nothing but ‘someone out there knocking and there’s no one there at all, at all’…ps. cost me a pretty penny in searches as well (want NAA refs).
@NP: Absolutely agree MC is a crock. But I think even the claimed “Hill Cipher” within the alleged MC doesn’t really stand up in any scrutiny (a result that either shows a total miscomprehension of the tool being used or a deliverate deception (which I think is far less likely)).
In fact (As I think JS is alluding) it reminds us of the Danetta farce – that relied on misunderstood results from the same tool (if there’s a pun there it’s certainly intended).
Actually Tamara my last out of context comment headed ‘Ilusions’ was meant to cover a spelling error ‘ellusions’ in a previous post, but which unbeknown at that time, somehow didn’t pass muster with our chief censor. Funny thing being I still got it wrong and I bet that not a soul twigged to it.
The very latest ‘Where are We’ analysis from Bowes on where the inquiry stands as of Dec. 2020 reeks of hypocracy when one compares his since redacted tongue-in-cheek praise for Flash Gordon’s latest Tamam Shud ‘Code Cracked’ fantasy. We might wonder whether this pair will ever concede that their doomed efforts will always be associated with lost causes.
Prosper McTaggart Thonson finally decided to come out of hiding in the early 70s when he gave his full name to title at 6 Katoomba Cres., Beaumont. Nice little family sized spread and he appears to run Thomson motors in the city, only five Kms. from home and ’73 he’s still insitu. Same goes for Colin Freeman at 2 Bickford Terrace Somerton and brother John (not Ron in mmy boojs) hasn’t moved from his digs since the 40s; with Freeman family chemists likewise apart from Glenelg. All of this being a bit late in the day for murder charges from ’48 to stick, what?
Stick with your Beaumont fantasies old soldier … there’s a sucker born every minute.
Speaking of fantasies, Pete, you’re still stuck on trousers and matches, I see. Despite the best efforts of those that mean you well.
Wood for trees, as they say in Sverdlovsk Oblast no doubt. Here in Vallegrande, we just shake our heads.
Still plugging away on all fronts old draft dodger, baring VM which was dealt with most effectively two years ago, while you slept no doubt; soon to be declared as modern with help from microbic organism sleuths no less. As for the big one, well you’re in for a surprise my man, though things may take a little time to put in place with official liasoning and the like. Don’t worry if I don’t report so openly or often as I don’t want to spoil the final outcome with a rush of distasteful publicity y’hear?
Proof enough.
TAmara: Here in An Khanh prefecture at our monthly Peoples Party meetings we are at times inclined to substitute imperialist words and phrases to counter negative non pure thoughts of certain unenlighted delegates, ie. tiresome, repetitious, tedious and downright boring are a few that come readily to mind. When the offenders can’t or refuse to recant, a last resort is a short stint of social readjustment at a specified rural facility which usually works. Unfortuately some miscreants are found to be beyond redemption which is unfortunate…for them that is. Perhaps comrades in Vallegrande would be familiar with such therapies.
John, revolutionary justice is, by nature and through circumstance, both swift and harsh. That said, a certain pluralism is to be encouraged among our cadres – as long as the central tenets of our cause are rigorously adhered to and defended.
While we must guard against division and sedition, perhaps we should give Comrade Pete another opportunity to redeem himself? He has, after all, been a stalwart in the struggle so far… one of the few left from the original journey on the Granma, so to speak.
And at least he’s not as batshit crazy as Cramer.
That last point was poorly worded, for which I apologise. By way of clarification: it is the theories that I consider to be crazy, not the person.
That is, of course, the kind of mis-step that could land a revolutionary in front of a people’s tribunal.
We have a well known post struggle revolutionary saying which or more coloquially translates to ‘A sunburnt duck should lie down on its back’, or more familiarly to those not accustomed to Vietspeak phrasiology, ‘if one’s comical hat sits well, than one should not feel disinclined to the wearing thereof’..ps.You were correct first time re ex comrade Cramer and it goes without saying that our struggle is never ending.
I’ll leave the personal stuff out of it (for once), but mention it’s not the theories from anyone that are the problem, it’s the crazy defence of them even against fairly solid evidence – and that sort of digging the heels in and protecting the theory at all costs seem to occur on almost all sites where SM is discussed.
Also, Merry Christmas to the lot of you.
It seems a couple of years ago we were talking about Robin Thomson having worked in a car yard in Belconnen (ACT).
So William Sherwood Duffield of Duffield Motors was an acquaintance of Prosper. Duffield Motors later became Sherwood Motors. There was a Sherwood Motors in the ACT (in fact that location is currently one of the biggest Car Yards in the ACT – National Capital Motors (which now seems to own almost all one side of Josephson St Belconnen)).
So it doesn’t seem the longest bow in the world that Robin may have worked for Sherwood Motors, Belconnen (not related to the Adelaide one in any obvious way). But as ever, that’s a nice ol’ coinky dink.
As a bonus, in much more recent history, one of the people from the car yard seems to have had some passport fraud issues (although not half as interesting as it sounds).
But for me that raises a range of interesting questions:
1) Why was Robin in Canberra? There is no obvious Ballet connection that I can think of. The main reason people live in Canberra is to work for the Government (in fact, by design, Canberra exists primarily to support Government).
2) Is it any coincidence that Alf Boxall was also living in Canberra**?
3) Was Robin working at Sherwood Motors, and is there any connection whatsoever between Sherwood/Duffield of Adelaide and Sherwood of Belconnen?
** Holt (where Boxall lived) is about 5km from Belconnen (and I think is considered “West Belconnen”). Canberra’s design centres around town centres (Originally Civic (ie City Centre), Woden (including Weston Creek and the new suburbs in Molongolo), Belconnen and more recently Tuggeranong, Gungahlin (some woudl divide into up to 12 regions, but some of the places people refer to as a town centre (e.g. Mitchell, Fyshwick, BBP) are industrial or business centres (whereas the Town Centres are commercial centres surrounded by residential).
As ever, I digress. A result of this is that Canberrans tend to be VERY territorial (pun not intended) – If you live in Belconnen you don’t really venture to Gungahlin or Woden unless you REALLY have to. So Robin and Alf both being Belconnen side is at least a touch interesting.
IF Robin was working in the car yard, then he wasn’t in Canberra to work (who goes interstate to work in a car yard?). Equally, Canberra does not have any ballet company of any renown (as far as I knwo), so it’s a peculiar location for Robin to be “between jobs” if he’s already pursuing a dream of dancing. These days, perhaps, people might consider living in Canberra and transiting to Sydney as required – but I think that’s a very recent development driven by skyrocketing house prices in Sydney (and you’d be better served finding a regional centre closer to Sydney). So I guess I’m intrigued is there any connection between Boxall and Robin both being in the ACT. And then the existence of Sherwood motors there adds some intrigue as well. I guess something along the lines of “Robin has gone to Canberra to visit/meet Alf and his dad’s lined him up some temporary work at Sherwood motors” (of course, if Prosper and Duffield had a falling out as has been speculated in the past that becomes a touch problematic)
ref: https://ciphermysteries.com/2014/10/06/communists-workfloor-missing-mr-keane
Milongal: Even in the early sixties, the heart of Canberra’s commercial business district (Civic Centre) was in Forrest and it included all the big car dealerships. I wouldn’t be surprised if old Phil Byrne decided to name his first caryard after the location of Robin Hood’s own Forest Lodge in days of yore. He ran bars in Angeles City and Manilla with his brother from memory and he would have much preferred the monicker Philipine Phil, to the Robin old basket of Sherwood Motors I’d reckon. On about Robin as in Thomson; I was under the impression (probably wrongly) that he and his new missus Jenny? may have had some links with the ACT based Jestyn Victoria Potter ballet school.
Granted it’s 2 decade later, but sort of interesting to have a Jestyn pop into the mix…and I missed that Ballet school when I searched. In any event, I can find Him (and Roma) as enrolling in the Australian Ballet School in ’65 and later (in the 70s) being in productions by The Australian Ballet through to at least ’76 – although it’s possible he was involved with the Canberra one after that (according to an obit in the Canberra times, it was originally “Brian Lawrence School of Ballet” and later “National Capital Ballet School” – and while it mentions Victoria Jestyn and Michelle Potter it doesn’t mention it ever taking on their names)
In ’89 Sherwood Motors was in Josephson St, Belco – can’t find too much about it before that.
TBH I can’t find anything about Forrest originally be Civic either (although it was one of the earliest suburbs, and you can see a lot of the circles of the Griffin’s design). My understanding (and I’ll happily stand to be corrected) that the Griffin’s plan was a triangle linking Civic (the people), Defence (Russel) Kurrajong Hill (Parliament – but I think the intention was never to have parliament on top of the hill, rather to have parks for the people above the parliament – that is, while the current Parliament House embraces the spirit of Griffin’s vision – that politics is not above the people – the intention was to have PH at the bottom of the hill, and parklands above (or similar). This would be split by a shopping precinct/mall underneath Mount Ainslie at the location that ended up becoming the War Memorial. While there’s certain aspects of Manuka/Forrest that have me believing it could have been the original city centre (e.g. the presence of St Christopher’s Cathedral) I think a lot of that sort of thing predates the city itself – although Manuka was certainly a shopping hub in the 1960/70s even if it wasn’t Civic.
muddying the waters as ever
JS, the car dealerships were in the suburb of Braddon (not Forrest) and in Fyshwick in the 1960s. Robin was a salesman with one of the big Braddon car dealerships (Greg Cussack in Mort Street, Braddon from memory). A mate of my brother knew Robin who raced a Ford Escort in hill climbs around Canberra.
The name Sherwood likely connects with an early settler’s wife who hailed from Nottinghamshire. Henry and Eliza Philips ran a dairy and produce farm of 500 acres at Uriarra Creek, Canberra prior to the Federal Capital’s arrival around WW1. During it’s hayday Sherwood was well known as model working farm and heritage landmark garden showpiece. I’d hazard a guess and say that’s possibly how Phil Byrne first came up with his Sherwood Motors of Belconnen as opposed to my Forrest proposition. Perhaps Philip Byrne’s family had connections with the original settlers, hence the name.
Before some other discerning web sleuth pounces; it has been noted that our S.A. used car king pin Bill Sherwood Duffield and SA big game hunter, was formerly a dairyman and headed up a state division of Australia’s largest exporting creamery.
Something strange about his inability to become a pilot during his stint in WW2 where he served out his time as an RAAF guard. Even though he had claimed 80 hours pre war flying, plus having qualifications as an engineer his file shows that the authorities were not impressed by his undoubted expertise. Maybe he was suspected of being in with “Clifton’s back garden’s” communists on the workshop floor”. He was most certainly not Prosper’s mentor for the ’36 W.A. grand theft auto job as BD suggested back in the day, that was the American flim flammer.
Of late I’ve been giving some more thought to SM’s (?) improvised tools and his brush impregnated with a powdery substance that has our claimed authorities stumped. Of course the knife and scissors could be seen to apply to any number of uses, but if one takes a little more notices both have some unique features that point unerringly to that of your typical itinerant sheep doctor oddity, long gone now but common during the depression and immediate post war years. His tools although not pretty had been modified quality Sheffield blades, kept honed for impromtu offering of a particular job that many farm hands found somewhat irksome. In South Australia, from late spring after shearing, this sad loner, likely to have been of former better standing, went around rural properties hoping to pick up short run contracts for dirty chores like tail docking, crutching, mulesing and castrating of the yarded stock before be dipped and released. His name was not the one he was born with, but something easy like bluey or curly and he was well used to rough living, either camping on the track or in a deserted shearers’ hut; Where, with luck he might pick up a piece or two of discarded clothing with a name like Keanie on it or a flintless and wickless pipe lighter that could be easy brought back to order…As for the unidentified brush substance that Peteb gets into such a dither about, it was of course Stockholm tar, a standard brush on treatment for knife or scissor wounds and as a general antiseptic which was easy to mix from powder and clean after. Now there’s the type of feller Len Brown was thinking of when he said ‘bushie’ and you can’t help but agree can you?..
john sanders: Stockholm tar (aka pine tar) would be an interesting hypothesis for those who wonder whether the Somerton Man’s calf muscles were from horse-riding (than from ballet dancing etc), because it was commonly used on horse’s hooves. You might then wonder whether the nasty little shiv the SM had in his suitcase was also somehow for hoof fixer-uppery?
However, here’s what a 1940s farrier’s tool kit actually looked like:
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1940s-Blacksmith-Tools-Farrier-Vaughan-Bushnell-Hoof-Clincher-Heller-Cutter-3-/203203507847
Nick Pelling: I did cover the likely SM horse care connection ages ago which also involved the tool kit. But as I recall, and I stand by it still, Gordon’s ridiculous lensless loupe, is in fact part of an equine cheek piece, nose ring and lead. I know it well and it is readily identified by three small nodules within, these being to resist rope slip. Strangely only our Dominion friend misca agreed with my ‘well spotted’ id. Of course this doesn’t mean to say that SM the ovine man didn’t put his nag on the Broken Hill goods train to Adelaide while he road in comfort and then park old dobbin at Somerton Stables; say about the time young ‘Fred’ Pruszinsky brought the rest of his clobber down.
Chemist Cowan is being subjected to another savage mauling over the way at Tbt which is consistant with Peteb’s maniacal facination with the third mate’s stencil brush residue makeup. This time it’s long respected Byron Deveson who can’t fathom why the short squared off brush wasn’t subjected to Bill Bragg’s Nobel Prize winning crystal spectro analysis gizmo, then installed at Adelaide University.. Seems that poor Bob Cowan, having given his unexpected testimony, did not hang about to await further humiliation, which was when Det. Leane chose to deliver his famous punchline ie., “Mr. Cowan did a check on the brush and found it had been used…” ….It’s all cleared up over here now with common sense realisation that the untested brush residue could only have been a water soluble substance such as a resin based hoorse hoof preparation applicable to continuous use, whereas your normal uncleaned paint brush used for stencilling crates or bales etc. would not be worth keeping.
Broken record ahead….
Nobody realised that SM was going to become quite the mystery it did. What many people cite as individual incompetence and/or conspiracy are (IMO) easily explained as organisational incompetence. Things that aren’t considered important are simply pushed along following arbitrary processes. Sometimes, retrospectively, something becomes important, and when you go looking for the details you quickly realise it’s just been ticked and flicked.
Now you have a little bit of a problem – you can either double down on previous conclusions (which begins a web of white lies) or you can come clean and say “oops, we mucked up….can’t rely on that bit”. Even when the person most directly responsible for the issue is happy to admit fault, the management chain often perceives some level of embarrassment potential and is keen to “oh, just make it sound like you done it proper…”. In the Government this can be particularly true – embarrassment to the agency is perceived to have potential to affect funding. Further it depends how staff are tasked. If a boss says “Can you prove that…..” their underling will think they MUST come up with something CONFIRMING the presumption (as opposed to “What can you tell me about this? Do you know what the black stuff might be”).
Extrapolate that beyond the Analysts to the Witnesses – who may feel pressured to give particular detail a particular way (and may be reluctant to correct the record when it’s misinterpreted). I think it’s good to critically look at the discrepancies, but they don’t always instantly mean gross individual incompetence. There are a whole number of reasons why these discrepancies might exist without meaning someone wasn’t fit for the job they were doing – and while most of them come from different character flaws (and we all have some of them) they’re often more likely from being unable to correct a boss who misunderstands you or from the individual not realising they can actually return an unexpected result when asked to confirm results….
2c
It is worth mentioning that when we talk “Salisbury” in the 1940s, we’re not talking the current suburb of Salisbury, but rather a large rural region (including the current suburb of Salisbury (S&M lists it as “12mi North – which would be the existing Salisbury railway station), but a lot, lot bigger). This area would have included Parafield Airfield and Edinburgh RAAF base.
At Salisbury, the line branched NW as the “Main North Line” and North toward Gawler, and about a mile up the former track was a station called Hilra which was technically on the Penfield line which branches North from the Main Line just after, and serviced the Explosives Factory. I *think* (based mainly on the imaginative names for the Penfield stations (Penfield 1, Penfield 2 and Penfield 3) that they were likely primarily for freight, and there is some evidence on trove that (Post-war) workers accessed the munitions factory at Hilra – possibly living on site.
NB if you want the location on googlemaps:
If you find Salisbury, find Centrelink on the Salisbury Highway, and follow the light grey railway lines to the left, when you get to Playford Pavers you’re roughly at Hilra. Follow the line up until “Northside Roller Doors” than turn Right toward Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority – that’s roughly Penfield 1(actually straighten to the Left a little where there’s some sort of roadway (it’s drawn in as a light road).
Follow along the line of that road (the road stops and then starts again other side of Purling Ave) and near “Third Ave” (DSTO group) would be Penfield 2 (I think maybe a little further North). Keep following the same direction, and when you get to “Taranaki Road” – with Edinburgh pass office to the West and BAE, Airbus (and other Defence contractors) to the East is roughly Penfield 3. The wide area North of that (between “West Ave”, “Bellchambers Road”, “East Avenue” would have been the turning loop – by my estimates that’s about 4 km of track from the time it turns Right after Hilra – so that’s a pretty big operation just for the Munitions depot.
Sort of considering how this line might have fit into previous railway speculation (around Hamley Bridge and surrounds), but I think that branched beyond Gawler, so this would be the line through Mallala toward Bowmans (why do I think there was some mention of a Bowmans train that morning?)
IMPORTANT: if Derek Abbott insists that Sapol provided the DNA test hairs which he subsequently used to identify his SM candidate as Carl Webb, he’d then have to show some validation for entitlement. Sapol would likewise need to have it’s own proof of origin and possessional continuity for the sample hairs. If no such evidence exists how could a re-ajourned coronial inquest be fully satisfied that Carl Webb is indeed identical to the deceased?
We’re talking about fifty individual hairs according to Abbott and each has to be accounted for or else another sin nie verdict be on the cards.
Definitely agree with that – hair in a bust isn’t demonstrably SM’s necessarily. But until there’s some more about the method (which I doubt there will be) there’s loads of opportunity for contamination anyway…
And I’d like to know more about the method – because my take is they got a DNA sample, found a vague match into a family tree, and then went hunting for someone who dropped off the radar about 1948, settling on Webb. Given they wouldn’t have CWebb’s DNA there has to be a little bit of guess work (or perhaps more politely “assumption”). IMO, there’s a scope for that to be almost as big as some of the speculation around Fedosimov……
Put less delicately – My opinion of Abbott’s scientific rigor given he’s an academic is on par with my opinion of GC’s detective skills as a (self pro)claimed ex-copper.
My main concern is, that our absent minded Professor likely came accross Carl Webb by chance while working on his long held but plainly flawed belief that the Thomson ancestry was key to his SM identification conundrum. In the long run it may have been more convenient to simply fit the long forgotten poet into the picture with help of some familial DNA manipulation which is now all the rage. Ask Byron, he knows.
JS, Milongal,
I follow DA’s research work and I can vouch for DA being one of the best scientists in Australia, and even on the international stage. The research that DA is doing, and guiding through his students and research teams, is top notch and I am not aware of any better work being done in Australia. I share your disdain for most academics but DA and his teams are delivering top class results.
I think one media report stated that DA’s team had tracked down three living blood relatives of Carl and the DNA tests of these three people all showed a match to the DNA recovered from the hair.
But, we don’t have to fret about contamination and similar issues because SAPOL have SM’s body in their designated DNA testing laboratory. Presumably, now that DA’s team has identified Carl Webb, SA Forensics and SAPOL will check to see if this squares with their own DNA tests. In a way DA’s team have made things easy for SA Forensics/SAPOL because all SA Forensics/SAPOL have to do is get DNA samples from the blood relatives of Carl and have them tested.
Remember, DA’s team includes a DNA recovery laboratory with specialist scientists. I suspect this group would probably out rank SA Forensics in the DNA test area.
Sharon,
Read about black Stockholm tar on this thread including brush on application by vets and stable hands for equine care. It might provide you with something more meaningful to consider for future discussion than the boring persistent undeserved character assasination perpetrated on analytic chemist Robert James Cowan. Boofheads the likes of wise guys PB, HMV, misca and BD from way back in the dark ages are still out there puting shit on the poor bugger, unwavering in their abuse yet many years after his sad passing.
Dr Dwyer on the Somerton man “There was the expression about his face as though he might have been an educated man”
Apparently, the Welsh guy Bob Walsh was coming home for Christmas with a packet of grass seed. He may have been a fighter at Sullivan’s Gym or a cyclist at Woodville Park or a horseman at the Tenterfield and Glen Innes show rings.
EP. John Cleland, on the other hand took one look at SM’s phys. form, remarking something much along the lines of “British through and through” or “British to the boot straps” relating to signs of superior breeding, expressions being popular in our far flung antipodean post colonial dominions circa. 1948/49.
@ John Sanders
But weren’t all Australians back then called ‘British’ citizens?
@Pat
Only when prepared to uphold their colonial duty to the motherland.
@Pat,
1993 – when Menzies said he was British to the Bootstraps .. Gorton introduced a new sense of Austrialanness.
In 1994 they were viewed as Australian Royalists supporters of the British Queen and idea of a Commonwealth.
Aug 2023 “Australia cancelling Commonwealth Games is an ‘indirect way’ of turning away from King
“… can vouch for DA being one of the best scientists in Australia…” – it’s interesting, because his qualification seems closer to engineer than scientist (even his publications and supervisions seem to be in mathematical/computing fields).
But maybe my understanding what “scientist” means is flawed.
Also interesting that his Uni page lists “Forensic Genealogy” as a research topic.
Julian,
A bit of quid pro quo between scientific men no doubt and your highly regarded DA supporter Byron Deveson himself, prefers the modest title “Retired Scientist” these days although he never did reveal in what field of the sciences he’d once been active. Must admit I ever heard of a retired one though, I just assumed that like old soldiers, they just faded away.
David Morgan,
It was the Victorian red ragger premier that bowed to his masters and cancelled the Empire Games, not good old Aus-trucking-failure and come October as a nation they’ll show the’re loyalty to King Chas. III by supporting the Constitution. Sorry not to be there for the bash though I’ll lay claim my fair share of the prize.
Julian, DA is a proper scientist. The “engineer” bit comes in because much of what he deals with is oriented to the practical rather than what Rutherford called “stamp collecting” that is now followed by the vast majority of those that are now called “scientists”. Australia has it’s fair whack of scientists but IMHO most do little of any value. Also IMHO the country is stuffed without DA and the few like him.
Most of the research that DA and his students are involved with are the fields that will both drive and better the world in the future. And it is not just restricted to economic activity; it includes biomedicine, computers, electronic devices, new medical imaging devices, software, AI and on and on.
Check out the wide range of areas that DA works in. See: https://researchers.adelaide.edu.au/profile/derek.abbott
@julian,
My concerns about DA are that:
1) a university took him on to develop computer chips (I assume) but he is allowed to while away his student time on the Somerton Man.
2). DA is not his real name.
3). He spent a lot of time explaining about the student extracting mtDNA from the bundle of hair when Colleen Fitzpatrick said he was given a bag of hair by SAPOL.
4). During the earliest podcast he explained that people in Melbourne couldn’t see an image of the SM. Yet he was a Trove volunteer who transcribed the article in Melbourne with an image of the SM.
5). When he was aware of this error instead of saying he was wrong he said they could only see a very small image. When the image in Melbourne was quite clear. They could see the profile or face-on image depending on the newspaper.
6). When I told him about this he blocked/restricted my comments on his FB group. For example, I wasn’t allowed to upload an image because I might show the image people could see was large.
7). He was aware Carl was trained as an electrical “engineer” at Swinburne – the clue was in the football photo of Swimburne technical college. But he insisted on calling him by other descriptions like instrument maker which people might construe as he was making guitars when likely it was a reference to making ‘electrical instruments’ perhaps later also at Sher’s Red Point Tools.
8). When I sent him facial ID images (tested by an expert) which confirmed Charlie in 1929 was Carl at Swimburne he didn’t reply. When he did reply to my university email it was quite rude, 1-word responses, like ‘Twitter’. Not even Hi David, you will find the images on Twitter…DA.. It is a basic principle of university education not to be that rude to academics.
Although I am convinced Carl is the SM, it gives the appearance he was used to put out false information about the SM by being provided with a bag of hair to test. If he had been honest about all the details of the hair he would have been viewed as having scientific integrity.
Byron Deveson,
I’ll stand by my belief that your absent minded professor should not be taken seriously in any of his public pronouncements, ridiculous quoted facts and wild assertions regarding the Somerton Man case. I’ll concede this does not adversely reflect on the fellow’s scientific credentials which do sound impressive in your words, however I wouldn’t trust the man with my DNA or my funeral for that matter. This is the scientist who claims that because the a candidate was named Solomonson [sic] he could not be Somerton Man as the latter was uncircumcised. Turns out the suspect John Salomonson was born and buried as a Catholic, so not Jewish as DA assumed. More of the same poorly researched facts can be found on Derek’s Tamam Shud web site under ‘Primary Source Material’.