Imagine, if you will, that everything about the Somerton Man is somehow embedded in the name written on the back of the off-white tie found in the suitcase left in Adelaide Station. Can we decrypt the life hidden in this writing?
Well… we can certainly try to, right? As normal, let’s examine it reaaaaally closely…
A Name of Two Halves
The first thing to notice is that the initial (followed by the dot) and the K are not only much bigger than the rest of the letters, they are also stylistically very different. Moreover, whereas the “EANE” part was written in legible compressed block capitals, there’s no easy way of telling what the initial letter at the start is – is it a ‘T’ (as SAPOL thought in 1949), or a ‘J’, or perhaps even an ‘I’ or an ‘L’? And finally, the letter K has an unusual construction (which we’ll come to later).
From all that, we start with a visual paradox: that even though the stylised (and largely indeterminate) initial letter is typical of a signature (i.e. writing made for personality), the EANE ending would seem to be more typical of clothes block marking (i.e. writing made for clarity). How can these two very different writing styles be reconciled?
My suggestion (perhaps it has been made before, I honestly don’t know) is that the writer wrote the first two letters as a signature, but then changed his mind, perhaps from the difficulty of writing on fabric. And so I suspect his writing strategy changed after writing the ‘K’, leaving us with a hybrid that was part-signature and part-clothes marking.
Because the second (block capital) half doesn’t really offer us any obvious help, we only really have a single letter to work with here – the K. However, this is a letter with a very unusual construction…
Anatomy of a ‘K’
To me, an individual’s handwriting expresses a set of compromises between an idealised set of letterforms (design) and the individual’s desire for speed (impatience), clarity (beauty), ornament (fanciness), reproducibility (consistency), or whatever. Note that I’m talking not about graphology here, but about the practicalities of real-world writing.
From that point of view, capital K is actually quite a difficult letter to write. Once you’ve formed its main vertical bar (normally downwards), you then have to lift your pen off the paper and decide where to begin your next stroke. And then, in the context of cursive writing, you have to consider how you are going to join the end of your final K stroke with the start of the following stroke. All these practical micro-decisions yield a wide range of possibilities.
Looking closer at the K, I suspect we can see three separate stroke parts (probably made by a right hander): an initial downward ‘spine’ stroke (annotated red below), a second downward diagonal stroke (blue), and a third stroke upwards and slightly curved around (green). It’s not 100% clear to me what direction the green stroke was made in (i.e away from the second stroke or towards it):
It could well be that the green stroke started at top right, looped down to the midpoint of the first stroke, and then became the start of the blue stroke. Here, the stroke sequence would be 1-3-2:
Either way, this seems a somewhat unusual and awkward way of constructing a K: but with an historian’s hat on, where might we find a corpus of signatures to compare this particular K construction against?
WWI Irish Soldier Wills
Given that Keane is a predominantly Irish surname (“Kean” appears much more in Scotland), I made a speculative leap here that a good place to look for a set of signatures would be in the Irish archives. (If there’s a far more global handwriting archive I could have used, please tell me!)
However, almost all the Irish genealogical archive holdings online (e.g. via Ancestry.com) were of official registers (Petty Sessions, even the Dog Licence Register!), which were normally filled in by a small number of official hands. Rather, what I wanted wasn’t names written by a professional hand, but a set of signatures left by ordinary people.
Usefully (but nonetheless tragically), this is where I found that the Irish archives contain a long series of Last Wills and Testaments (many on scraps of paper, and with a fair few reconstructed by witnesses from conversations) from Irish soldiers who died in WWI. Reading these, you can’t help but be affected by the senseless waste of young life: so many were just boys, bequeathing their possessions and pay to their mothers or sisters in shaky pencil in their Army Book 64.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the archival query engine wasn’t quite designed for what I was trying to do: so I first searched for all soldiers called John, drew up a list of the surnames beginning with K, and then searched all of those surnames.
This yielded about 500 individual documents; about fifty of which were missing; of the rest, roughly fifty had no signature (e.g. when the will was relayed by witnesses), so I think the final corpus size was not far off 400 signatures.
Normal Ks and Special Ks
In this sample, it seemed to me that the majority of the capital Ks were formed of a big vertical downstroke (often embellished), followed by a single second stroke (sometimes embellished) which ran from top right diagonally down left to the centre of the first stroke (often pausing to loop there) before continuing diagonally down linearly right to end up at the bottom right of the letter, ready to be cursively joined with the following letter.
Another common construction began with a big vertical downstroke, but where the pen then restarted at the centre of the vertical to form a second curved downstroke, finishing off with a third more linear stroke upwards from the centre of the vertical.
There were also some some unusual two-stroke Ks where the gap between the two strokes was so wide that it was almost unrecognisable as a K. For example, here is how Denis Kelly wrote his wife’s name, which I must admit had me completely stumped for a couple of minutes:
What we see in the Somerton Man’s K is different to all three of these, in that it has a curve at top right and a straight line at bottom right.
Matching Ks
A couple of signatures do vaguely match the Somerton Man’s K, insofar as they have a main vertical stroke, a straight diagonally right downwards stroke, and a curved diagonally right upwards stroke.
- No. 14908 Rifleman J. Keelan, 2nd Battalion, Royal Irish Rifles, died 30-1-1915. Here he writes his father’s name:
- No. 16241 Private Patrick Kinsella, 6th Battalion, Yorkshire Regiment, died 3-2-1917.
Private Patrick Kinsella’s K was clearly the closer match of the two. (According to fold3, Kinsella was born 23-5-1884; his widow (separated) was Susan Lennon of 11 Railway St, Dublin; and his three children were Denis, Patrick & Mary Jane.)
Learning And Growing?
In my experience, people tend to attack cipher mysteries in a ‘vertical’ manner, i.e. by looking for causality, direct association, immediate linkage, relevance, etc. But sometimes historical research is better done horizontally, i.e. by building up a wider corpus and trying to situate your mystery item within that larger corpus.
What I tried to do here was a faltering first attempt at a horizontal search for the source of the marks on the tie, but I think it’s fair to say I didn’t really find anything in Ireland. Next time round, I plan to look at (mainland) British and/or American and/or Australian K shapes from this period (if I can find good signature corpora for them, all suggestions gratefully received!), to see if anything K-related happens to jump out at me.
It’s just a crying shame that we don’t have images of the other two KEAN[E] marks, or even any description of what they looked like. Unless you know better?
Nick,
As so often with theoretical constructs, it’s the unexamined premises which cause me disquiet, especially when they appear to be in conflict with, or formed in ignorance of, the relevant social and historical context.
In this case, I have difficulty with what seems to be an assumption (is it an assumption, or something known?) that (a) the clothes could not have been bought or received at second-hand though this was extremely common for poor men in the immediate post-war period. Remember that some men weren’t de-mobbed for years, and others only after signing up for another stint.
(b) is more substantial viz. that a man would inscribe his name on his clothes in 1954 Australia. The customs of the time would make this likely in only a few situations. For example, it would be the laundry, not he, if these were laundry marks. Similarly, if the clothes had to be labelled because they were to be laundered in hospital, not taken home by relatives, then they might be labelled by nurses, or by wives or other female relatives – because laundering was women’s work in those times in Australia, and even a single man would assume that a woman (or migrant) must be found to do it. A tie was not generally washed, but dry-cleaned, and again the cleaner would do that. Cleaners also had the right to sell off cheaply any unclaimed clothing after a certain period of time. Not sure what that was in the 1950s.
Whoever might have written the name, the most interesting letter is that single initial. It doesn’t look to me like any natural form for a letter of the English alphabet in the scripts taught in Australian schools at that time, where the forms were derived from ‘copperplate’. It may be a clue to the nationality of the original writer, but – as I say – it seems a bit much to me to simply presume that writer was the man wearing those clothes when he died on Somerton beach.
That last paragraph – I either posted or meant to post similar here. I’m very interested to know what they other KEAN(E) markings looked like partly because I’m a long way from convinced that we’re looking at “T Keane” here, and partly because to me the KEAN/KEANE difference is not easily dismissed unless we can tell separate people wrote them (which as floated by many people over time might be consistent with people in an institution labeling the clothes of someone whose name they don’t know).
I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it before I find the ‘A’ interesting (nothing to do with the code page’s ‘A’s). It has a very square shape. If you look through military records, the ‘A’ on them has a similar square (or sometimes circular) shape (to the point where people have previously pointed to similarities between the handwriting here and there). It seems to be a convention at the time to draw ‘A’ like that on at least those Military Enlistment forms (and other military papers) – but noone has been able to explain to me whether that was the case and why it would be (or whether it’s possible there was a single registrar that used to write like that).
An interesting example is a record for DAC (TH) Keane on the National Archive. Page 1 has the very square ‘A’ (curiously, page 3 has a ‘normal’ triangular ‘A’ on equivalent paperwork). P1 lists DAC as initials, P3 lists TH as initals and DAC as rank (not sure if it’s a military rank, but nothing comes to mind….D might be Deputy and AC might be Air Commander or Army Captain or something…..but it’s a stretch).
Trying to find non-Keane examples, and starting to doubt I’d noticed it….but CLARK – NX151261 sort of shows it. Look around – I’m sure there’s others. I sort of find it interesting it seems to take this sort of a shape on titles, but not necessarily elsewhere on the page where capitals are used (where you get a more traditional triangular ‘A’).
NB: As mentioned elsewhere, I think the first letter is actually the number 7 – not entirely sure what the number would mean. Best I can come up with is (fairly unlikely, I think) that it’s “Room 7” in an institution of some sort or something
If the T is a T, then the closest type of T I can think of is the T I was taught as “Schulschrift”. The first image here shows a Swiss example from 1947. The capital T is in the final word of row 5: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausgangsschrift
Two questions, the first one echoes what Diane wrote:
* what are the chances that T. Keane (or whatever) is the signature of the S.M. and not something else? It is quite strange that only a couple of items from his whole wardrobe are signed, don’t you think?
* if I look at those letters, I read “Reanie” or “Reane”; it turns out that Reanie is an actual surname (a rare variation of the more common Rennie, I think) and Reane too, and even Keanie (but that is very rare). Have you look at Reanie, Reane, Rennie?
Diane: if you recall, three separate items had (broadly) the same name written on them, which I think reduces the probability that these were all second-hand goods acquired independently. (I explored this specific possibility several years back, but I don’t think it really stands up to scrutiny.)
As I tried to make clear in the post, I’ve also been vexed by the first letter’s inscrutability. Of the numerous scenarios I’ve considered, the one that makes the most sense to me by far is (as described above) where the first two letters are from a signature, and the remainder is a block marking.
If you accept the first two letters are (or even just the initial is) from a signature hand, then I think the probability that this was the writer’s own name sharply increases. Of course, there are many other possibilities, but I’m just trying to tease out what little information there is latent in a very small piece of writing. 🙂
Tamara Bunke: I certainly considered exactly that kind of hand, but even so I have to say that I remain firmly unconvinced by any of the four main candidate initials – T, J, I, L. (My wife is a fan of L, and I’m a fan of J, but fandom seems just as poor a basis for a cipher mystery theory as it ever has been.)
In the end, I think we just have to accept that we don’t yet know enough to sat, but if we were to see a signature tomorrow with that same letter-form, I think we would all recognise it instantly. 🙂
Stefano Guidoni: three items had KEANE or KEAN on them, but no other items had any name at all. It’s a huge shame we don’t have photographs or even sketches of the other two items. My strong suspicion, though, is that the other two items clearly said KEAN or KEANE, and so I believe that the police in 1948 had no doubt as to his most likely surname.
I’ve had cause to be examining some old Hungarian records today.
The construct of the letters in those documents were similar, and I actually used this very post to help me to read them.
For instance here is the registration page for Tibor Kaldor’s father’s death in Hungary https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6LXH-RBF?i=103
If it’s of any use.
But i think like the others that labels might’ve been cut off because the clothes were bought second hand.
Unfortunately that family search is paywalled 🙁
@Stefano – I agree the last letter to me looks like something other than ‘E’ I can imagane ‘ic’, except the ‘i’ looks to have a backward cedilla or similar diacritic under it (closest = ogonek – but I’m not quite sure on that)…..
I’ve previously speculated that after ‘N’ it is something different altogether (not sure what – if it was from the 21stCentury I’d suggest a smiley or some other emoticon). The K does have a strong similarity to an ‘R’ with the top faded, however (NP has sort of convinced me with this post) the way the top stroke on the K meets the bottom, it appears the bottom was likely written first (which is an unusual way to form R – I think moreso than K (which I think is also unusual). My only clutch at straws on that line is that perhaps there’s detail lost in the connection of all 3 strokes because of texta on rough tie isn’t the best media to work with.
Both the first ahd last ‘E’ in KEANE have the same stroke formation. Possible problems with ink flow applicator caused some confusion to some doubters.
milongal: Yes it looks like Peter Davidson @ Petedavo has seen fit to corner the market on most names associated with SM. It’s obviously a deliberate systematic ploy to stymee related research, punters now only having paywall access to the meat. No problems from where I stand simply because I only see tenuous circumstantial relevancy at most.
PB: RE your latest about the slip needing to match. The torn book did not match the neatly trimmed slip (insert placeholder for side-rant about whether the book handed in was the right one – we’ve had it before).
So while perhaps this is why SM ends up dead (the slip didn’t match), how would the slip end up hidden back on his person (was he strung along and then killed and the killer forgot about or couldn’t find the secreted slip?
But lets for a second forget that. How do we explain the mismatch (some less explicable than others)?
1) SM tidied up the torn slip into a trimmed slip – this would suggest he didn’t understand how the ID would work.
2) The book’s page got more torn while in the car – either through kids playing with it or for some other reason – it’s hard to see a scenario where this is deliberately defaced
3) The book is not the book being sought. The person handing it in was either looking for public spotlight or playing a prank, and never expected it to get taken as the actual book (at which point it’s hard to walk back the story)
4) There were multiple books (as some of the newspapers suggested – and until recently I disagreed with strongly) and for some reason we’ve stayed with the wrong one.
5) The book’s page was deliberately torn after meeting SM to try to hide the ID method. This is a bit hard to believe – why not rip the whole page out, or get rid of the book more effectively.
6) The book somehow got damaged in between the slip being given to SM, and the book being given to the other party. Maybe this is a deliberate intercept to make sure that the book and slip don’t match to try to frame SM as a fraud
7) The slip and the book aren’t the same. Either the book or the slip was an attempt to intercept a contact. The slip is either deliberately trimmed to make it likely to be smaller than any tear in the book, or the book is deliberately ripped in a larger pattern – this relies on assuming plausible deniability on a non-exact match
There’s probably loads of other ideas too…..but for the slip to be an ID the 2 need to match. Have you got any thoughts on why they don’t (don’t have to be from the list above)?
Milongal … the well-publicised picture of the torn page is a ‘copy produced by the media depicting actual copy of Rubaiyat’, Check Feltus. It isn’t the real thing. Page 169.
…Ain’t necessarily so Peteb…The things that you’re liable to read in Gerry’s Bible. Take for instance the general acceptance of his Tamam Shud clause as nothing more than a general finality or ending statement. When God took exception to the oft maligned Mr. Goody two shoes Job, he referred to him in words that roughly translated to ‘filthy excrement’ or more precisely Tammim Shood in old Hebrew. Now those old Torah taught single minded Jews were known for calling a spade a spade, my take on all this being that ‘expendable’ could be the literal equivilent.
It’s no wonder that only the first Fitzgerald ROK edition ended with Tamam Shud; upon being allerted to his error all others terminated with Finis or the one word Tamam, which standing alone was inoquous and simply equated with Gerry’s otherwise flawed terminology. Speaking of spades reminds me of the US Marine Corps grunts who placed their Ace of Spades death cards on the bodies or in the pockets of their dead adversaries. That scenario might bare consideration with SM.
Peteb: For the umpteenth time, the ‘slip of paper with the words Taman Shud’ (sic) and ‘a piece of paper’, marked C1 (f) and C9 respectively by the court Deps. Clerk at the 1949 inquest, were undoubtedly separate exhibits though both referring to virtually identical ‘Tamam Shud’ slips. This is so plainly evident in both copies of the Inquest documents vis. statements of Moss and Brown that no body could confuse what each deponent alluded to in his evidence. There were clearly two TS slips there for all to see….excepting those who won’t concede to facts that don’t fit their particular agenda.
Milongal. THERE is no effort to stymie any research, hence I used a completely free website called geni which anyone can add to or edit and merge. I use a free account, and that’s all you need too. There is no paywall. Just simply bypass the usual suggestions that you’re better off with a pro account, because a basic free account is all anyone needs, and is all that I use. As I posted before on BF, I’m simply using it to follow any lead of anyone associated in time, space, locality, or common interest to see if we can simply jag a possible POI. So far I’ve only ma n aged to rule out possibilities. But at least it’s there for anyone to see, why it’s ruled out.
I don’t take derision as an excuse to do nothing. I’ll take leads from any quarter and check them out. It’s lateral. I’ll read the years of postulating on here there and elsewhere. BTW Jon Sanders correctly guessed who’s Robin’s biological father father is years ago on a post in Misc Stuff.but since Professor Abbott isn’t about to go to the m edia with who that is and how it was confirmed, I’ll respectfully leave it at that.
Regards.
Peter Davidson: You’ll have ‘guessed’ by now that my interest in a reported tryst between one or another of two cousins named Alfred Boxall, with some unamed army nurse of likely French extraction and aged about 20 in mid 1945, is cursory at most. So I’m really not affected one way or another about information amassed on members of certain families, taken and calibrated to suit a most ulikely SM agenda with little regard to veracity imo…As for Lieutenant Boxall being the likely father of Robin, you’re over generous about my ‘guessing’ prowess, noting also that you have since claimed ownership of the prize which is only to be expected of course.
The Sydney Sunday Mirror in it’s preamble to their E. B. Collins hoax story of 22 November, 1959 took it’s readers through a general fact list on Somerton Man’s phys., clothing and his personal possessions though strangely making no mention of any suitcase contents. One interesting thing that seems largely overlooked concerned a singlet, presumably worn at the time of demise, with it’s almost indicernable letter labeling of T. Kean.
john sanders: I’ve only ever seen the mention of that article in the CIB report quoted here – http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/tamanshud/CIB_1959.pdf – where the summary states that “[…] ‘T. KEANE’ appeared on a grey tie, ‘KEAN’ on a singlet, and ‘KEAN’ was stamped on a white linen bag found in the suitcase.”
Whereas the article itself – http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/tamanshud/mirror_nov1959.pdf – states that “[t]he only clue to the man’s identity was an almost indecipherable mark on his singlet – T. KEAN.”
I’m pretty sure the article got it wrong, sorry. 🙁
No need to be sorry Nick, I was of a similar view based also on the CIB report and was mild interested that the press had gone a step further to making mention of the ‘T’ in Kean and using the word indicipherable…for effect no doubt!
If the aforementioned underwear marking had been so faint as to be almost indecipherable, surely that would lend considerable weight to the likelihood of them having been subjected to quite prolonged use and presumably ((hopefully,) by the one wearer, ie., SM. I also recall picking up on a related issue of there having being some discussion around possibility that the name KEAN may originally have included a final ‘E’ (for KEANE) which was so indistinctive through constant washing as to be unidentifiable…..Just to-day the Lord Mayor of flood inundated city in NSW was asking for donations of ‘new’ underwear for the homeless of her community.
….., and by extension, it’s also worth considering the possibilty that an attempt had been made unsuccessfully, to obliterate the ‘E’ from KEANE on the tie to create a better sense of oneness for the three marked items, bearing in mind also that the washing bag was said to have been ‘stamped’ KEAN.
@PeteD – I wasn’t suggesting there was an effort to befuddle, merely frustrated I couldn’t access the link. I’ll have another look.
@PB: Sure, the pictures aren’t the same, but read the inquest(s). We have a vague “Paper is kinda similar” because the slip were not obviously the same (ie hole does not match the torn slip). in any event, my understanding is (irrespective of the pictures we have today) that the slip was not the same shape as the hole in the book. Of course one could’ve got torn more later somewhere…..but that’s sort of in my original list of pick-a-paths…..
NB: I think there is even some mention of the slip being trimmed in newspapers of he time…..will look it up.
Nick, have you ever consider the cloth labels could have been written by someone with marginal English knowledge and whose first language used no latin letters?
I´m asking because the unusual set of strokes making up the letters (which for sure may in part may be explained by the difficulty of writing on fabric) looks as odd as the items on my Japanese dry cleaner´s handwritten receipts.
@PB: not sure the actual paper, but Abbot’s link here, page 2 article “Book Clue Found” (marked 23/7/4 – presumably that’s 1949)
http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/tamanshud/newspapers1949.pdf
Last paragraph:
“As the scrap of paper found on the dead man had been trimmed, police were unable to identify the book merely by fitting it into the torn page”
Same date, news article on the following page:
“….and a neatly trimmed piece of paper….”
Incidentally as mentioned plenty elsewhere, revisiting some news articles and inquests have the code page containing “several” or “two local subscriber” phone numbers.
SVanHutten: I’ve considered many, many scenarios for this, but most don’t really fit what we see. I tried to use this post to outline where my reasoning has reached with this.
Milongal, thanks .. that article doesn’t help, but I’ll stick to Feltus rather than a reptile of the press.
Feltus doesn’t disagree. The fact that the pictures we’ve got are of a newer remake doesn’t mean the original didn’t have the same discrepancy.
Go through the inquest. Why did they compare paper types? Because the shapes didn’t match.
The ’59 inquest appears to have several photos of the slip – but the quality is so low can’t see an outline of the slip, just Tamam Shud on the page 4 or 5 times). The page then has ‘O.H.M.S’ (Best I can come up with is On His Majesty’s Service) and a stamp from Attorney General department.
Incidentally, this from Durham, recounting Dec 3 1948:
“I also have some copies of the writing found on the deceased”
“I took a photograph of the paper found on the deceased and I produce copies of that”
What writing and paper is he talking about? Presumably these two statements happened on some other day (the inquest isn’t clear), but do they relate to the TS slip, or something else? It also appears that while photographs of the deceased taken by Durham were submitted (C5-C8 – although C7 and C8 mentioned as being returned) neither of the items he mentiones in the quotes were submitted as evidence (which might make sense if the paper itself was available). [Brown later submits the paper as C9]. There is another paper submitted marked C15 and corrected C18 – but I think this is what Stanton Hicks wrote possible poisons on.
The 1958 inquest that appears to have C8 which is a map of his teeth – I’m wondering if this is the paper that Brown submitted as C9 (which I thought was the TS slip)
I’m sure they’re listed elsewhere the exhibits seem to be:
C1 Packet containing items on body
C2 Teeth Chart (a version scribbled on a packing tag is later listed as C8 on ’58 inquest)
C3 book extract about barbituates
C4 Ticket (I think actually the stub for the suitcase)
C5 Photo of SM from side
C6 Photo of SM from front
C7 photo of SM returned to Durham
C8 photo of SM returned to Durham
C9 Slip of paper (TS Slip?)
C10-C14 Photographs of cast (C10 and C11 on file)
C15 Clothing
C16 Suitcase
C17 – Bust of the body
C18 slip of paper with names of possible poisons
It’s interesting the railway people are only asked about arrivals of country trains (or only bring information about them), and departure of Henley ones. This is sort of clear because there are 11 Henley trains listed as leaving before 10, but none mentioned returning. Might have to go hassle some gunzels I know….
Milongal: I’m thrilled! Following all my many efforts to convince folks, you at least now tentatively agree that Brown’s C9 ‘piece of paper’ exhibit must in all likelihood have been our fabled second Tamam Shud slip. Now I can work my point backwards for chance of equal acceptance for the Tamam Shud slip referred to by Const., marked C1 (f) and returned to him in an envelope containing other SM possessions (C1 A/F) upon conclusion of his testimony. Well spotted at long last.
Getting back to the pic of the torn page: it doesn’t look official, especially with that finger.
Let me back up a little there .. you say, Milongal, that the pictures we’ve got are a remake of the original, which could only mean the police mocked up a copy for the press the day they received the book from Freeman.
Before R.L. Leane was seconded from breaking squad to take on the SM case second week in January, the investigation was being pursued by general crime suits at Glenelg, they being H. Strangway in charge initially, s. Sutherland, H. Gollan and PC Horsnells. Errol Canney just back from hols in Sydney filled in for Harry when the latter was called away for a week long rape trial day two 2/12/48 and who had by it’s finish, been replaced by the man from Angas St. HQ. I Always thought that something was amiss when naught was heard from H.S. but on seeing his changed schedule recently in trove am more or less satisfied why no notes from his SM crime scene attendance ever surfaced.
Peteb: That finger could have been directing the thrown book through an open quarter pane widow of the moving car when Freeman suddenly gunned her and foul hooked the digit in so doing. Looks like Durham fluffed the exposure though which wasn’t like him at all.
I’m tending to side with NP apropos his concerns on the likely offset add-on forked projection to suggest a ‘K’ for Keane when the letter may well have been an ‘L’ for Leane, originally a hand me down military tie that R.L. Leane aquired from a past active service relative. The non descript initial could easilly have been an add-on to serve as a blind lead and detract attention away from the original owner whose possessions he had inherited.
@PB: My point is the picture(s) is/are irrelvant. I have never suggested the slip or the hole in the page are true and accurate accounts. What I said was the shape of the hole did not match the shape of the paper (trimmed) – and this I base on reports in the media, not pictures. In any event, the fact that we know the pictures which clearly don’t match aren’t necessarily of the actual paper doesn’t mean that pictures of the real paper would match any better (or at all).
I didn’t say the pictures are a mock up (other than that’s what I interpreted you as saying, so I may have repeated it), what I’m saying (or trying to say) is my original point about the slip and the book not matching (in terms of shape of the tear) is based on what I read not based on pictures we can see. Specifically, there were newspaper reports (at least the 2 I pointed out, probably more) referring to a “trimmed” or “neat” slip, and there is some reason the Government analysts analysed the composition of the paper (which as it turns out I couldn’t find in the inquests). My understanding was that the reason they did this analysis was because the slip did not match the tear in the book – so they needed some other way to be confident it came from the same source (but having not found reference in the inquest, I don’t recall what helped me form that opinion).
In any event (refer many of my posts elsewhere) I’ve never been comfortable that the slip “definitely” came from the book in the car. The analysts conclusion is vague and “couldn’t prove they’re not the same” rather “definitively proved they are”.
Short version: My understanding (irrespective of pictures which according to some people may/may not be original) is that the slip and the book did not match in terms of shape of the tear. If the intention was to verify identity with them, we need to consider how we explain the differences.
As for mocking up the original – I don’t quite follow that conclusion….
milongal: as far as I know there are several versions of that quite rare Whitcombe & Tombs edition. One feature of the various versions is a different colour for the pages and I suspect that the coloured paper had not exactly the same tone in every book from the same version. So finding a matching slip of paper for a given book was not easy. As a reference with some picture: http://www.bobforrestweb.co.uk/The_Rubaiyat/N_and_Q/Whitcombe_and_Tombs/Whitcombe_and_Tombs.htm
As a side note: if you remove a piece of paper from a book page by hand , you have to tear more paper than the slip size. Only using a cutter, it would be a different story.
Nick – sorry to take so long to get back.
If you’ve ever tried writing with ink and nib on label-tape, you’ll know it rarely looks like a person’s writing on paper. Lots of skidding about etc.
More to the point. The usual way to donate goods – through the war and to as late as the end of the 1970s, was to put everything into a tea-chest. Those chests then stood about in the ‘op-shops’ or were fairly desultorily sorted and put on a few shelves and coat-racks. It was very much ‘white elephant/jumble sale’ style, with centres after the war overseen by a couple of nice, older church-going ladies who knitted and chatted as people dug into the bins. Only with the post-hippie ‘retro’ craze of the 1980s did Australian op-shops start to adopt a more commercial look.
I recall the frequency with which a tea-chest would include the whole wardrobe of persons recently (or not so recently deceased), together with other items donated by the same household. In fact, that was the norm.
So it would be quite unremarkable for someone to obtain several items from the same chest or bin, especially if they began by looking for trousers or jacket roughly the right size. It would follow that other clothing in the same chest would be of the right size too and any tags on them would carry the same name, or at least the same surname. Post WWII there were a lot of households disposing of the possessions of their late relatives.
I’m not trying to argue that the Somerton man was, or wasn’t surnamed ‘Kean(e)’ – only that the historical and social context suggests it’s unwise to step out too far into unknown waters.
(written as much of eastern NSW and Qld is flooded)
@Stefano: Thanks – I don’t disagree with anything you say.
(Not that it’s overly important, but….)
Some time before PB was saying the slip and the book were used to confirm a meeting (one person has the slip, one person has the booklet). My view were that if that were the case you need a good match between the shape of the tear and the shape of the hole. From what I’ve read (and as you point out), it seems unlikely that sort of a match would have been the intend (ripping out an entire page might make more sense).
Somewhere along the way my posting seems to have been misconstrued to suggest I was saying “everything is a fake” – which isn’t impossible, but I never said that.
Milongal: I haven’t read anything in the news of the day that suggested the slip and page didn’t fit each other, neither have I seen a report that said they did.
What I am reasonably sure of is that the Investigating police didn’t invite the press into the station for a picture opportunity the day Freeman handed in the Rubaiyat he found in his car. Which means the only picture we have ever seen of ‘a torn page’ is fake, but one that was created with some inside knowledge seeing as that particular newspaper was so quick off the mark.
D. N. O’Donovan: So where does your jumble sale et al suggestion leave us with the likes of a marked laundry bag singlet as well as the Keane tie. You reckon our SM would be on to stuff like that for his new wardrobe?. I Can just imagine the old dears from the mission sewing circle touting their wares to him with “How’re you off for socks and underware luv”. By the by you’d be surprised just how long some families hung on to the clothing of their war dead stored ever so lovingly for many years in those same China tea chests or metal army trunks, forwarded by dutiful QM Stores personell to yearning NOK.
Peteb: Just picked this up from newspapers found on your most informative blog site.. It comes from the Melbourne Herald dated 23 July 1949 and goes in part like this:- …Because the top of the scrap of paper had been cut clean, it did not fit into the torn part of the page. But the bottom of it corresponded with the printers trimming at the foot of the page, and police are satisfied that the piece was from the book…I picked up on something very interesting that I hadn’t noticed before so I’m locked and loaded thanks indirectly to you.
@PB: Cool (I did point you to a couple of articles of the day (23/7/1949 would be the day after the book was found) that you dismissed). If you don’t like it on Abbot’s site, you can find it on trove with the location:
/newspaper/article/130266390 (News (SA) 23/7/1949)
It has 2 pictures (which may or may not be legit), but if you read the article (2nd column) it says “…and a neatly trimmed piece of paper with the printed words ‘Tamam Shud'”
/newspaper/article/52688055 (Examiner (Tas) 25/7/1949)
“…and a trimmed piece of paper bearing the printed words ‘Tamam Shud'”
/newspaper/article/26648686 (Mercury (Tas) 27/07/1979)
“…was a piece of trimmed paper bearing the printed words ‘Tamam Shud'”
/newspaper/article/76183104 (Mirror (WA) 23/07/1949)
“…and a neatly trimmed piece of paper with printed words: ‘Tamam Shud'”
/newspaper/article/56059849 (The Mail (SA) 23/07/1949)
“…and a neatly trimmed piece of paper with the printed words ‘Tamam Shud'”
…
“As the scrap of paper found on the dead man had been trimmed, police were unable to identify the book merely by fitting it into the torn page. Proof will now rest with tests on the paper and the print”
/newspaper/article/24367570 (HErald (Vic) 23/07/1949)
“In the pockets were: …. A piece of neatly trimmed paper, bearing two printed words ‘TAMAM SHUD'”
(the ones below mention torn, not trimmed, but I’ll note they sometimes mention the entire page being torn)
/newspaper/article/78632681 (BorderWatch (SA – Mount Gambier) 23/07/1949:
“…a torn page of the translation in the pocket of the man…..”
newspaper/article/82580060 (Singleton Argus (NSW) 29/07/1949)
“It was thought it had been torn from….”
Some have pictures, although the TS is cropped so you can’t actually see the edges (and as you point out, pics could be mockups). What strikes me is that using slightly different wordings, many of these articles mention the slip being trimmed. At the very least that means the original source (which admittedly might be the first journalist that reported it) has indicated it was “trimmed” (or more likely “neatly trimmed”, given that comes up often).
Short Version: the available evidence (and what we might lack in reliability we make up for in volume consistently saying the same) suggests the book was torn, the slip was trimmed. IMO, if we are to believe this was a mechanism to identify two people to each other, we need to be able to explain why there’s a mismatch – did one or other party not understand how the ID worked? Or was there another reason?
NB: I’m sure I can find more references if desired.
Aside, there’s also this one from 10/07/1949 (/newspaper/article/168961380) – which doesn’t mention trims or tears, but has a slightly different-looking side-profile of SM
I remember one newspaper saying the entire page was torn out – GordonC and I had quite a lot to say to each other about that but it all ended well.
Plenty of suggestions along those lines Peteb, but a lot of incorporated newspaper duplications to make too much of it’s relevance. My reading of the Herald from 23/7 gives an altogether different perspective in that, although the top of the ‘scrap of paper’ (not slip) did not line up with the book’s tear line, the bottom corresponded with the printers page trimming. Sounds like something totally out of left field all revealing but I’m battling to make sense of its intended message.
All that aside, I’m almost sure we can agree on two points relative to the slip’s relevance. The very fact that it was trimmed, if that were to have been the case, totally negates its original intended purpose as a means of establishing bonifides in achieving satisfactory common purpose exchange. Whatsmore if police had have done the trim after discovery it would have depleted it’s value as comparison evidence in conjunction with the so called Freeman ROK to their detriment. So to what purpose on both counts, unless it was done with that very intention in mind. To get rid of the evidence which, I guess might have been the best precaution against disclosure on the first count, or to hasten a case for suicide without any unessessary complications on the second. A bit of a long stretch either way for mine but quute ingenious nonetheless if one looks at where things stand right now.
I’m sorry to be late to the party, but doesn’t this say F Kean Jr?
And that’s why the singlet has the name Kean. Ties would be easy to confuse, and it wouldn’t be obvious which was Sr’s and which was Jr’s. But only Jr wore singlets?
Please tell me I’m the 27856th person to suggest this and I’ll go away again?
And that would also explain why he’s just ‘Kean’ on the singlet. Same name.
You’d need to label the ties Sr and Jr if both father and son wore similar ones. But if only Jr wore those singlets…
SirHubert: F Kean Jr without a period after F. and why not?, he being a septic and all. Glad you could make the party Sir, even if 73 years late. Privilage of the upper classes what?.
This will be interesting,
Sir Hubert goes back a very long way … and the one advantage of being in the upper classes is that you have an osprey’s view of everything lower. Personally, I think his Highness is onto something.
John and Sir Hubert – the different spelling might add weight to the likelihood that the name tapes weren’t written by members of the Keane family but in what I call, generically, a ‘domitory’ or a ‘laundry’ context.
John, I can’t quite understand what your point was where you wrote,
“D. N. O’Donovan: So where does your jumble sale et al suggestion leave us with the likes of a marked laundry bag singlet as well as the Keane tie. You reckon our SM would be on to stuff like that for his new wardrobe?.”
After the war, with its shortages and thousands of new migrants, and released former soldiers, there was a great need for people to be provided with clothing – often it was second hand, and distributed by charities either within or outside their depots and op-shops. For ‘ordinary’ people, in a country that had one of the highest quality-of-life standards in those days, only the needy tended to accept anything second-hand. When I spoke of the ‘jumble-sale’ it was only to describe what the charity depots and shops looked like.
I daresay that if one could be bothered arguing about this, and needing proof, you might find post-war advertisements calling for clothing drives for the many thousands of new migrants – displaced refugees from the European war most of them, as well as the returned single men and even Americans who having seen Australia decided to stay here. Until the late sixties it was indeed ‘the lucky country’.
Peteb: Or else our old crusader is merely taking the piss out of you’s paltry peons, with good cause too, if that be Sir Splodge’s real intent. PS. apols. to His Nibs & CJ’s Gluggs of Gosh for any misunderstanding.
No, I don’t think it says Kean Jr. The construction of the final glyph is similar if not identical to the very identifiable ‘E’ in Keane, consisting, as it does, of an L-shaped upright and base that appears as a single stroke, finished with two horizontals that don’t connect to the upright and in the case of the middle horizontal, show a marked ‘downward’ angle.
The man’s name was Keane, as someone once said.
SirHubert: the initial letter is stylised and indeterminate – could be T (as the police thought), or J, or I, or L, or indeed F. Which isn’t a vast help, but it is what it is. The good news is that if we see this in a signature, it should jump out a mile. 🙂
As far as your (possibly new) suggestion that it ends in a teeny weeny “JR”: it’s certainly possible, and might go a little way towards explaining why the other two names were KEAN rather than KEANE.
The bigger question remains why he had an off-white tie at all. Who wore one in 1948?
Tamara Bunke …and on that last piece of wisdom I rest my case for Sir Hubert’s taking the piss. I said exactly what you just kindly reiterated regarding the almost ldentically structured ‘E’ ketters in KEANE just a day or so ago. Nick’s retort be even equally repititious and fails to see the obvious intened joke. For all that our lately long overstayed old surfer mate picked up on Sir Humbug’s lurk quick as a flash.
@Sanders… apologies if I inadvertently plagiarised your content, but I couldn’t be arsed scrolling through the whole thread to pick the peanuts out of all the shite.
Nick and all,
My questions are these
Why would a person need their name written on their clothing (do you do it?)
If they did – in what context would they feel it necessary to do?
In that case, who would be likely to do the writing?
In any case, why not do this in what was the normal way – by writing on tape and stitching the tape to the clothing OR (as was usual with school uniforms etc.) buying Cash’s tape with the name nicely embroidered already?
Since it was well known that marking ink would eventually eat its way through many fabrics (high iron content in many of them, but some used China black), then who would be so ignorant, or so poor, that they’d write directly on the clothing itself, whether for themselves or for others?
If I were doing this research, I’d look into the usual practices at that time in jails, and in hospitals where they might be more likely to dispense with the time-consuming niceties.
One thing is fairly sure – the clothes weren’t tailor-made or expensive. In either case a label would be provided with the clothing. Inscribed if tailor-made, and blank for use by a commercial laundry if not. That was routine.
Diane: my impression of the clothes found in the suitcase were that they were very much consistent with second-hand clothing, certainly not those of a well-off man. The clothes the Somerton Man was actually wearing were slightly better, which similarly gave me the impression that he had dressed to meet someone. And yet three items had the same name on them.
Tamara Bunkum: Apologies accepted, though I didn’t realise that it was a full week ago that my like two liner was posted. Same thread mind you but there was also mention of faulty inkflow that that might well have thrown you off…so sorry too.
Nick: Your opinion on second hand clothing in the Keane/Kean case may need some revision. My understanding is that the two coat shirts were quite new, at least one having it’s Pelaco label attached and of course the Marco elestostrap trousers were of a design and quality equal to that of the expensive (7guineas) Stamina exactofits found with the body. I guess we might also get a similar pass for the latest worn ‘jockey’ briefs matching one or two pair in the port along with store baught pajamas a dressing gown, slippers and tartan scarf, plus an extra white collarless dress shirt described as being identical to the one worn…sorry
Diane’s mention of released former soldiers as opposed to her later descriptive crossover to released military men, suggests she may have been referring to the thirty thousand POWs in the first instance and not half a million others who were demobized throughout Australia in tge second. I can well imagine there being clothing shortages amongst the Changi boys who would have lost every stitch of clobber they ever possessed and girlfriends to boot, many being given up for dead by lovedones who had no affirmative communications during their long period of incarceration. It would cetainly not surprise me if our man was of this category in which case the Keane clothing fits the bill for SM and what’s more there would be existing records to help identify him. In this regard I’ve checked through some available lists of POW’s, namely those from Dutch East Indies and Hainan Island (2/21 Inf Btn),1500 of them and I’ve effectiveley dismissed all but one single forty five (1948) year old Sergeant from country NSW. Upon getting his discharge from ECPD Sydney in December ’45, he was never heard from again. I was told he died in the fifties and buried in Sydney but I can’t find him through inquiries with the POW & RSL or his unit assn. nor War Graves, all of whom usually have answers.
I tend to agree with Diane – the texta’d name would seem to be so that some third party can identify whose clothes they are – whether that’s the laundry peeps in some sort of institution (hospital, prison, military) – Unless someone can come up with an alternate reason to mark your name that way. This also helps explain away KEAN vs KEANE – because they’ve been written by people who don’t necessarily know the individual but have been told the name to write (e.g. “mark it KEAN – with an ‘A'”).
At the risk of being even more repetitive than usual, I think that also makes it possible that the first character is ‘7’ – and that identifies where KEAN is (e.g. Ward 7 KEAN). And if we entertain the idea of ‘JR’ (much as I’ve questioned whether it really is an ‘E’, I’m not particularly seeing ‘JR’ in it) then perhaps it’s laundry at a military hospital and ward 7 happens have to ahve 2 KEAN s – causing the staff to add ‘JR’ to help them identify the right one. Of course you could argue, in this sort of situation they’d more likely mark some sort of unique identifier rather than surnames – especially since the laundry service needs to know where to sort it, not who to send it to….
@milongal
Who would launder a tie?
On that note: why is the brand of the tie not known? Ties normally have branded labels.
Our pasty loving F. Kean Jr would need to launder his tie with some regularity, especially if he be Keane on smothering his gravy oozing morsel with rich red Rosella tomato sauce.
Tamara: Soldiers were generally encouraged to remove labels from their kit when posted overseas, reason being to deprive commies of useable information. If one were to be posted to an area in the rear where regular furlough was available they would need to at least mark their civilian clobber with a unit number and surname (7. Kean Jr) to enable use of off base ‘dobie wallah’ laundry services.
Woolen tie gets dirty? I’d chuck it in the wash (TBH I’ve done it with ties of other fabrics with varying results). Why would you put a name on a tie if it’s never anywhere but in your posession?
But I’m starting to see Nick’s question about who would wear a white woolen tie? For some reason I had always assumed it was military ceremonial uniform (which I’d imagine you’d want to keep laundered lest your CO get sad when you’re on parade)….but a couple of minutes googling and I can’t find any trace of white ties being linked to ceremonial uniforms of that time.
It did occur to me that it could be a uniform from another profession (I could imagine Police or Firefighter – but again can’t find any reference). You’d imagine white tie more likely accompanies a darker shirt – but weren’t all the shirts in the suitcase light (I can only find reference to the colours of 2 – so stand to be corrected)?. So what other professions wore ties? Bus, tram and train drivers would – and while I’ve seen lots of combinations of bus uniforms, I’ve not seen ones with white ties (I suspect back then it would have been a light brown or green shirt with a darker brown or green corresponding tie – but I could also imagine other combinations with blue).
Who else would wear uniforms? Government employees (Post office, probably, I think Telecomm used to – maybe the Electricity Trust?). What about Government officials like Parking Inspectors (for some reason I could imagine a darker uniform with a white tie on a motorbike rider).
What about a sports club? I could imagine them having weird coloured ties (although I’d still expect it to go with a darker shirt).
So in any event, I could imagine a tie being laundered if it was part of a formal uniform (although with the exception of the military example, it’s probably unlikely to be laundered in an institution). I think Nick’s point about considering WHO would wear a white tie is well made – and I think “What in SM’s posessions would you wear a white tie with?” (or what is missing and why) might be one angle into that….
I don’t reckon he’d wear that white tie with any of his wardrobe, it wouldn’t go.
I think it’s high time we stopped referring to the woven natural, wool tie as being white cause it ain’t. Never even got close close in the plain old Keane days before folks started dicking with their fancy pixie lensed cameras and giving the image a depth change that tended to bring out a persil white tone that doesn’t wash imo.
In the photograph above, the item
1) doesn’t look like a tie
2) doesn’t look white
3) doesn’t look laundered
Tammy Shud: in my opinion, it’s definitely…
* a tie
* off-white rather than white
* fabric rather than wool
* washed rather than laundered
Tammy Shud: Simple definition of laundered equates to ‘an act washing’. It was furthermore accepted that the fabric is wool because it has a herring bone pattern unique to wool tweed blends. I’ll go along with you on non white colouration in that the item appears to be of a natural hue ratger than dyed; though I’ll stand by Nick’s assertion that the form more closely resembles a tie than anything else one might care to name.
It was the seam that bothered me. But I’ll concede that the upper part of a tie’s seam is indeed off-centre. I had to dig around in the dressing up box for that.
So, what we have here is a cheap tie. Coarse wool, treated relatively poorly (marked up with pen! Washed!). Not smooth silk. It is not ceremonial in nature. It’s off white or khaki. It’s a working garment. Part of a uniform.
Something about it says tropical.
Google images from the search ‘British Indian Army uniforms’ show group pictures of officers in both dark and khaki ties.
Turns out the Britishers still wear them:
https://www.cadetdirect.com/british-army-all-ranks-no2-dress-fad-tie-1403?gclid=Cj0KCQjwmIuDBhDXARIsAFITC_7UOF1n9deLKkgH1je1jtN4hvPWEBsPbtD6_G6v0H0aj1gGJ-SgwxYaAsGhEALw_wcB
See here for a yanqui WW2 tie in “off white”: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/WW2-US-Army-Military-Uniform-Dress-Khaki-Neck-Tie-2-/352146676324?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286
The Keane tie could be surplus. Could be the hombres own.
I’m sort of interested in the distinction here between washed and laundered – are we simply meaning “taken to a pro” vs “washed at home” or is there some other difference?
I’ve sort of treated the both of them as synonymous – and where I’ve talked about it being laundered I’ve meant in as far as when you’re in a hospital, jail or similar institution that someone else does your washing – not that it’s necessarily equivalent to dry cleaning or similar.
So apologies if that’s caused confusion (and if someone can explain me the difference that would be much appreciated).
Thanks Pete – that’s my understanding (although as I say there’s 2 shirts that aren’t described well in things I’ve read – from memory there’s mention of 4 shirts – the white one he was wearing, the yellowish pellaco one and 2 others).
So along with Nick’s “WHO would wear such a tie?” we need to consider “Why doesn’t SM have everything else such people would wear?” (or alternatively “Why does SM have this tie?” – which doesn’t necessarily directly relate to who would wear it).
Largely off topic there’s a reddit thread I stumbled onto yesterday that has photos comparing Ivan Milat with SM – Obviously they’re not suggesting someone who was born around the time SM died (and is known to have died recently) was SM, but I think they’re questioning whether there might be a family connexion…..
Any one given any thought about the tie pin, sticking out like dogs nuts and apparently it’s not Robinson Crusoe, otgers havibg been used as props for the upsidedown knife sheath and scissors in Peteb’s famous lodge photo. There’s also an extra sports coat in the suitcase that, as far as I’m aware has never gotten so much as a passing mention. Now that everyone’s finally on board with the Brit. ’44 pattern tie or it’s US military tropical HBT equivilent, we might be rewarded with a new thread on SM’s anatonomical extra that our ladies have previously like tge plague.
Tamara: good catch! The SM’s necktie is definitely an American WW2 tie, same colour, same weird seam. And it could be a surplus or a gift.
I find this case quite similar to that of the Isdal woman: clothes with no labels, a quite varied and inconsistent wardrobe, a coded message which could be made of initials, a person always on the move near a military test site etc.
He used the scissors to cut his hair.
The knife to open mail.
The brush to apply polish then shine his shoes.
… that’s another view anyway.
Peteb: Pure sentiment might well be the answer, brothers in arms keepsake crap; similar in a way to those old Speedo togs, Casben baggies, a favourite old waxed long board or a pair of Little Patties nickers. These things can mean a lot to a man at the end of his tether, ala Joseph Conrad, and more than enough to dwell upon when one’s time is just about up.
Stefano: I’m already in the middle of writing this up, so it seems like we’re all thinking basically the same thing at the same time. 🙂
The Ebay example referenced above bears the hand-written name “Jacobs” with a “R.W.” prefix or initial.
R.W. (or RW) don’t seem to correspond to a rank in any US service (nor, I assume, in a British or Aus/NZ service?). This suggests that the first part of the written text on the “Keane” tie is indeed likely to be an initial. So, not the number ‘7’, for example, denoting a unit, ward, etc.
Might just be the photo, but the material looks very different to me – the eBay has an almost hessian look, whereas the Keane one has a fluffier look that results in the appearance of a diagonal grain. Sort of interested that the tie has the name on their twice – do they expect someone to cut it in half? (also I what’s the number at the end ? One thing I came up with for E265 is a PoW work camp – “Grafenweilier”)…
milongal: Your ‘diagonal grain’ is commonly known as herring bone weft which US military uniform designers termed HBT issue type ’41 standing for herring bone twill. See Nick’s thread introduction tie blow-up and you will see SM’s jacket below which bears a similar design effect, as indeed were the Stamina trousers. The so called ‘fluffiness’ of your 7. KeanJR tie is probably due to it having been subjected to hot water ‘laundering’ contrary to the makers instructions ie., ‘wash as silk’ (see Tootal label) which an itinerant traveller like SM was likely to have ignored out of hand .
Tamara Bunker: Buggered if can make out your tie writing. Could RW stand for a manufacturors advice on laundry care as in ‘Regular Wash’ or it might be an army unit designation eg., ‘Reinforcement Wing’. As for ‘Jacobs’, that was a brand of plain hard soda cracker biscuits that came in big square cans and the British military ordered’em by the ship load just so’s the lads had something to fend the Hun off with in the big one of 1914-18.
@milongal – I’m not claiming the Keane tie and the ebay tie are identical. But they are two items of similar construction that have been marked with hand-writing in similar ways. Despite Sanders’ attempt to muddy pools, there is a striking similarity here.
As mentioned above, similar ties may have been work by Brit and Aus/NZ servicemen. And not just for “full dress” uniform, but also as part of “battle dress”, where officers (at least) were allowed to customise the collars of jackets/tunics in order to make shirt collars and ties visible.
@Bunke: Muddy waters & bloody trenches. F.KeanJR be your type cast beau ideal for the stiff upper lipped Anzac/British officer and gentleman. Resplendent to be seen in starched collar with Windsor knotted signature woven worsted khaki tie in full SM regalia. Then puting on a jolly fine pukka show with his mates in service to King George V. Holding up the whiteman’s burden with his mates and routing the ragtag Turkoman hordes then entering Palestine just in time for the 1918 Easter hols….Rule Brittania hey what?
@Stefano (and Nick, if applicable to what you’re writing up): yes, there are some parallels here with Isdal Woman. But her activities in and around Bergen are much better known. And there is now very strong evidence for her origin: she was likely born in/around Nuremberg and educated in the border regions of France/Benelux/Germany. She was also much older than originally assumed. The problem in this case is that there’s plenty of evidence… it just doesn’t seem to provide a coherent solution. Tempting, therefore, to think that a disturbed mind, acting irrationally, is at the heart of this.
Personally, I think there is a better parallel to SM: Peter Bergmann, found washed up, but possibly not drowned, on a beach near Sligo, Ireland. His movements in the days prior to his death suggest a man ‘putting his affairs in order’ (a euphemism for a pre-death ritual of organizing one’s finances, possessions, etc). The autopsy found he had at best weeks to live due to advanced cancers.
Apart from the parallels of identity (both SM and PB concealed their identity, in PB’s case very deliberately falsifying it: to this day, the man who called himself Peter Bergmann has not been identified), what strikes me is where they ended up. Both went to the end of the road, as far as they could. And there they died.
I have always wondered what we can learn from Isdal Woman and Peter Bergmann with regard to Somerton Man and would welcome some thoughts on this.
Each case is retold and analysed in a very good podcast. Search for “Death in Ice Valley” (BBC) and “The Atlantic Podcast Peter Bergmann” (Irish Times).
Tamara: I think that the actions of the SM and mr. Bergmann look superficially similar, but there are some striking differences. Mr. Bergmann is like many other lonely, depressed, suffering men looking for a place to die: he went to some desolate, remote, quiet place (as David Lytton, the body on the moor, did). The SM went to Adelaide. Bergmann was not in a hurry, he took his time, hanged around, while the SM was on the move and it seems he really had something to do there. Bergmann interacted with many locals and they say that he had a German accent, while the SM went mostly unnoticed. Bergmann destroyed his personal effects just before dying, the SM probably had none that could positively identify him from the start. Bergmann’s motives are quite clear and his death is not strange (because he was very ill) , while the SM was not critically ill (or ill at all) and the poison that could have caused his death was never found.
If the SM went to Adelaide to die, which is a possibility, but not at the top of my list, he went there with a purpose, and maybe he met someone there.
Side note: I looked at some British military neckties, and they are different, both the fabric and the seam do not match.
@Sanders here in Vallegrande we abhor all forms of colonial imperialist aggression. The heroes of the Granma were certainly not well disposed the necktie, preferring the plain fatigues of the virtuous guerrillero or, on formal occasions, the guayabera of the virtuous campesino.
But from the evidence before us, I do not think Señor Keane was a fellow traveller.
Somerton Man came to his ‘end of the road’ destination Adelaide (I’ll agree with Bunko on that) with but a few items of everyday wear for a few days, though with five neck ties in all. Two in particular suggest that the wearer may have had past service history, which we have discussed ad nausium and failed to come up with valid reasons for the surplus. If we could assume that he had packed them in order that they would be needed, then the most logical reason was in order to fulfil a need to prove ID bonifides. Could the reason for his death be attributed to his have worn the RW & B RAAF tie instead of the khaki Tommy Atkins or GI Joe job. Nice and easy if so and we could wipe the TS slip from our case load along with the unused Henley Beach rail ticket.
In my piddly little stint ‘a serving of her majesty’ in the 60/70s I didn’t sport a tie and doubt whether I packed one in my canvas sausage bag knowing it was not going to save my skin. However in those days before going on active service, we typically wore WW2 era British 44 battle dress which came with no extras. Our walking out clobber was a simple trouser/shirt combo that came with an open weave non tapering square ended tie and all of this fashion statement was 100 percent polyester, hence the name ‘pollys’.
Others can say as they will in order to justify the gent up above being a part of some clandestine hit team. I’d be betting on Constable John being at the scene on his day off in mufty attire for an evening ‘hit and a swerve’, it being part of a usual routine expected of the Brighton Station boss which included Somerton beach as part of his desinated patrol area. He and wife Heather Lee lived on Brighton Rd. next to the big cemetery and it was but a short walk to Alvington, much closer than Brighton pier. Not to forget that he knew Somerton as a favourite suicide venue and he made comment of it having a busy stairway access to the foreshore in his evidence. Why wouldn’t he be there at dusk on an early warm summer’s evening. Part dedication to duty and part pleasure and after all he fitted Olive’s description of being fiftyish not so tall. Of course next morn he was there in a trice according to our strapper friend Neil Day who said as much while he policed the scene. Yep no doubt about it, JM probably gave an all knowing ‘what’s doing gentlemen’ to his neighbours Jack Bain and Arthur Lee, right on time for the sad duties befalling his authority at 6.45am, this time in uniform of course. “He was cold, stiff and damp Your Honour” said he with confidence born of being in the know from an earlier presence.
John Bain Lyons (Jack on his WW 1 inlistment induction paper), And of course Heather Lee Moss (Mossy) was not related to Jack’s swimming mate Sir Arthur James Lee MC & bar. Said gentleman soon after to become national RSL president and who upon seeing SM dead and done for, did the only thing proper for a man of his status. Scarbered least he be called as an eye witness to the unfortunate event which might otherwise have put the mockers on his otherwise unblemished record of service.
WW1 history buffs would have jumped on my deliberate mistake immediately. Of course General Allenby and his Anzac Desert Column had kicked Gen. Liman Von Sanders and his rag heads out of Jerusalem in time for Carols by candelight 1917. My namesake who got out on the last train to Damascus, was later captured by the Brits. and spent the next year roaming freely around the Scotting gloaming in full ceremonial Turkish regalia with an off white German tie of course.
Milongal: The E265 you found on Tamara’s eBay R W Jacobs tie, which managed to avoid me, is what was possibly a laundry number, better known in the army as a ‘dhoby wallah’ mark. It’s purpose was to identify the owner of a garment and unit ID sent out for washing, with no chance of these specs. getting into enemy hands. The name on the tie may have been added following the soldiers return from war service which would explain both ID forms
Recent lively discussions on military neckties undeniably provide a long overdue link to SM’s possible service background with two of five known specimens being of that category. Adelaide detectives never raised the issue to the best of my recollection, including latter day cold case investigators Moran, Thomas and Feltus. Back in the forties it was Strangway and Moss, followed in turn by the likes of Leane, Brown, Sutherland, Gollan, Horsnell and Canney from memory. Turns out not one of these civilian detectives had ever done military service in WW2 which may well be grounds for their not having recognised some of SM’s belongings as being perhaps of service issue and a likely lead into his background.
@JS: SM’s looks herringbone, the ebay doesn’t.
Regarding Aussie military clobber, I can’t find too much evidence of any light coloured ties at all – there’s varying shades of green, khaki and borwn for army, blue in the air force, and as best I can tell Navy has a dark blue (navy, perhaps) or black.
In any event as we briefly mentioned before – the tie itself seems to stand out when there doesn’t appear to be a shirt to wear it with.
Wouldn’t ‘Dhobi Wallah’ be more Brit than Yank?
milongal: Our polly tie was about as light as you could get yet still call khaki. As for DW, sure it came to us from Kipling/Hindi slang which was part of everyday useage by British and allied forces throuout the far eastern postings and still used. As for the cousins, I’m not sure but can recall a lambada tub (?) in the sixties, though your average GI wasn’t too fussed about clean greens in the field, just so long as he was locked and loaded.
Here’s a little breakthrough of sorts courtesy of the TS leader himself, though unintentional it would seem for he does not address it. Gordon’s latest thread perversion deals with 21 Ind. Parachute Coy. GB, which included around twenty Austro/German Jews who may have been interns with the likes of Tibor Kaldor, but that’s for later. The promised breakthrough deals with the inset photo of five well dressed members of the unit, line abreast comprised of four officers in their Sam Brown leather shoulder harness and an NCO recognised by a ’37 pattern web belt on his waist and a lance corporal chevron on his sleeve…..WOWEE…feast your eyes on the officers ties. Three are dead spitters for our own Keane (?) Job, another worn by the ranking officer being off white which may better suit our colour blind contributors. The noncom’s tie is of course a distinctly darker less distinguished shade, so we can assume that if SM had been in the services, he was more likely to have been an officer than cannon fodder….Some of the more astute would already have come to that conclusion.
Well Well Well! What have we here. My last post on the officers ties, not even up for assessment, and yet sneaky old Gordon as jumped the gun and updated his related thread to accommodate my hitherto perportedly unseen disclosures. They being on differences between the ranks and their superiors on dress protocol including ties. He has now included a second photo which wasn’t up when I copied his original posting a couple of hours ago. We all know what this implies no doubt. It means that some low life dirty rotten scoundrel has in all probability stolen your password, as they have mine. I wonder should I drop the word to those who police internet hacking or simply change my identity or walk softly and carry a big stick?.
What sets apart this necktie from other military neckties is the seam and the tissue, not the colour (which eventually could get lighter or darker, or browner or even greener if you used the said necktie to dry the lettuce). The seam and tissue match the American model.
British neckties were completely different, for example:
https://www.dearoldblighty.com/en-GB/uniforms/prodcat_1146?reset=true
https://worldwarwonders.co.uk/?s=tie&post_type=product
Italian and German neckties had the same seam as the British ones.
Russians and Japanese did not like neckties.
Bloody nice set of pics Stef, every bit as good as Gordon the ex hacker’s posed outfits, if I’m any judge and we could have used them for discussion, particularly on the Keane tie saga in earlier threads..I’ll accept your better educated points of order regarding difference of seams between US and Brit designs though quite personally I’m quite undecided on which to choose for the SM/Keane (?) variety. Pleased to have my old squared off frizzy represented and off course our brass belt hooks which were obviously taken from early twentieth century Voynich glyph lines. Thanks and well spotted that man.
Peteb: Here’s a Tom Keane roughie unless of course you’ve changed horses, for the upcoming Somerton Stakes. A cove with that rare name moved in to 8 Price Weir Bvd., Allenby Gardens around ’45 and pulled up stakes in ’48 according to my ledger. Strange thing being when he left, a C. Kean moved in next door at number 6 and was still there into the fifties I believe. A Tom Keane from Burra married a tart named Cecelia in the mid twenties. So maybe they came to town after the war and in say late ’48 she offed him for the insurance, then bought number six under the shortened monicker and rented out No. 8 from which the late Tom Keane was delivered to the beach on 30/11/48…..Love your Wiki cunning linguistic skills.
I think 8 is one of the S&M mistakes. There’s an R.A. Burns at #8 through that period, and although Keane is listed at 8 in 1946 so is Burns…..and then ’47 T Keane is listed at #6.
When you mention that area, first thing that occured to me is 2nd hand car yards along Port Road….but I think that’d be further up toward Woodville and Port Adelade. I think we mentioned previously the old Holden plant that would have been operational in Woodville back then too.
From Price Weir to Croydon Railway station is about 500m. West Croydon is on the Outer Harbor/Grange (Henley) line. I’d be interested to know how the trains ran back then. In my living history (much later) the trains would roughly align at Woodville, with the OH line running express to Adelaide, and the Grange line stopping all stations. This would mean if you picked up a train at West Croydon it would be coming from Grange, not OH (and when the line went that far, Henley). So insert earlier speculation that perhaps he arrived in Adelaide on a Henley train and retrospectively bought a ticket (if there was no conductor on board – although there should have been a ticket office on the platform at WC).
Things a bloke does for his ‘colleagues’. In re murder suspect C. Kean who’s left the crime scene between ’55 and ’60, I could only find a Gladys Lilly Cecelia nee Harpur (Glad) who died in ’66 but her man Tom who pre’d her in ’64 came sans E on his Kean. There was a Tom with the works whom we never crossed paths with who ended up in Dudley Park who needs looking to for leads. Apart from him all the namesakes from pre ’48 including the L. Keane possibles seem to have remained static through a decade and longer which cancels any candidacy for them as SM.
milongal: S & Mc. errors are not unknown and undoubtedly that’s what happened here. I didn’t see the point of bringing up the obvious so as not to give it undue importance on what most half smart SM punters would consider to be a dead rubber anyway. If this lead were to be taken seriously by you Kean/Keane deviates, than there’s your proof of dual spelling within one family unit and possible food for more subjective thought. A side issue of much more potential importance to those so inclined, being what had became of T. Keane the tennant in chief, to be replaced in a trice presumably by a relative C. Kean.
A scurry of unusually hectic uniformed activity seen about West Terrace yesterday, Wonder what gives and what’s Derek got to say?
SM is being dug up right now according to news dot com.
A name that hasn’t registered with Keane fanciers as yet, and makes Sir Hubert’s F. Kean Jr. and similar seem tame by comparison. World wide distribution including all Australian states Victoria and S.A. in particular, typically associated with initials T. and J. though sadly no L.s or F.s that I’ve come across thus far. I’ll not hold back like some geni geeks are inclined to do, just giving everyone an even chance to pick it up for themselves before I name drop (if need be). And fair warning, you’ll need a myheritage pay to play account or worse if you’re going get the SM star.
No fault of slow punters who would never otherwise have the chance to get in on the Keane generated name variation due to my lead post taking a dive due to a more hyped up new thread complete with dice plagiarised from Peteb. The name of course is KEANIE, spelling of which has stumped a weak eyed newspaper text writer at Myheritage on a number of freebies. The final ‘E’ in blurred reference to professionals like mehanics, or body builders or union delegates named Keane can easily be called Keanie with last letters ‘I E’ being often valid. There are four male Keanie’s on S.A. geni site, all of which are death listings suggesting migration from other states or overseas. I’ve just been looking at three from Victoria born between 1893 and 1900 two of which have died post SM. Don’t worry, not being such a real Keane derivation fan I’ve left plenty for anyone who might be.
Any sharp eyed researcher with a good memory will surely recall that a lady from Queensland believed that a missing rodeo cowboy named Tom Keane might well be the high calved lonesome prairy rider found dead on the beach. There does just happen to be a guy name of Charles Clifford Keanie with the nickname cowboy 1945-1910 buried at Enfield S.A. and who is also listed on the S.A. geni site. So what’s to say young Chuck, being a chip off the old block as rodeo boys tend to be, can’t be the son of her nominated long lost SM candidate. Sounds like it could be well worth following up in for mine.
I must admit to being a little disappointed that my Keanie suggestion didn’t raise any inquistive eyebrows, especially considering that Sir Hubert’s nomitation of a Keane Jnr. was well received, along with Det. Lean’s interest in Keanic which he obtained on from an Egyptian informant’s belief that the monicker was Bulgarian. Close scrutiny of the white tie’s two terminal letters could easilly be I E by my reckoning, bearing in mind that those letters may have faded as were those on the Kean inscribed singlet. Keanie being a fairly common Irish derivation of Keane and similar other forms resonated for me and on checking I found plenty in Australia as well as internationally amongst immigrants from the Emerald Isles. Well worth a dermined non paywall researcher’s time in my estimation.
Way before Derek (not his real name) settled for ‘Charlie’ he had selected three like names that had come with Somerton Man’s suitcase contents ie. Keane Kean & Keen. In taking a fancy to Keane with it’s accompanying initial T, it was thus subjected to a universal elimination vetting campaign. Evenually a winner emerged near home in the form of a certain Thomas Gerald Keane. Although Tom turned out be Jerry (to his pals), Derek (still not his real name), as luck would have it, came up with a dead heat in sibling brothers Roy and Carl Webb. both conveniently dead (or assumed to be). Turns out they shared DNA with a pair of dead Keane aunts whose distant living Webb kin had the good fortune to be conveniently linked in with the Uni. of S.A. Keane Gene team just awaiting their chance for fame and fortune.
Apart from the Keane, Keane and Keen monickers that Derek had to select from, there be at least twenty more having the same roots and common as paddy’s pigs. If you were to follow any given family lineage back to the gold rush days in Ballarat you’re sure to encounter some variations. Don’t know if that affected Jerry Keane’s mob in Mebun but chances are it did…Coincidently though, not by chance I just came across a variant of the Keane/Cain stamp embeded close by our Jerry S. who died same day (15/6/49) that Paul Lawson was puting finishing touches to the bust ears, and who was likely lodged in WT morgue close enough to the action for DNA transfers aplenty.