A WARNING: Those site visitors of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Culture should be aware that there are photographs and images of the deceased.

The author of this blog is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers and as such the views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent the views and opinions of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, its staff or Directors.

Learn more about the Association including membership requirements at

The Somerton Man Case. The body of a man found on an Australian beach close to a major Atomic Testing ground, he was probably poisoned, a copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and an unbroken Code page found and associated to him. Set against a Cold War background in 1948, was this man a spy? We think so and this blog focuses on the evidence that was left behind and in some cases missed, the Code page, Dry Cleaning numbers, A Poem and a small, torn piece of paper bearing the words TAMAM SHUD.

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Somerton Man: Evidence That The Mold Was Intact After The Plaster Bust Was Made. May Still Be In Existence

Does The Mold Used To Create The Plaster Bust Still Exist?

DNA Could Be Recovered..

As followers of this blog may be aware I have posted on the view that the Mold made by Lawson may still be in existence. 

What this means is that if it is still around then it would be a rich source of DNA that could be scientifically examined and the results may help reveal his identity. Having researched this matter for some time and I have found the evidence that shows the Mold was not destroyed and disposed of at the time.

The Evidence

The evidence is amazingly straightforward and we are fortunate in that there is an extremely good video clip that shows us a mold being made of an upper body and describes it in detail. You will see that the mold is made in two sections with a special technique used to seamlessly join both halves. You will then see the mold being broken away from the subject, in this case an upper body model, and then it is ready to be reused. The only real difference between the methods used in 1948 and now is the types of material used, the process remains the same.

First the video, (quite lengthy at just over 23 minutes but well worth watching for the serious investigator), and we'll follow that up with further evidence:

1. The Wiki describes the manufacture of the mold almost to a 'T' as shown in the above video:

'Lawson's method was to build a wooden frame around the upper body, plugging up any gaps with clay. He then poured in plaster of Paris, to create a mould. The process was then repeated with the body turned over, to make the second half of the mould. Then the ears had to have individual moulds made. The man's hair appears neatly in the final bust, as Lawson employed a trick of combing liquid soap into the hair so it wouldn't stick to the plaster. Once the moulds were completed at the City Morgue, Lawson was then able to take them back to his lab to finally cast the bust and ears, and stick the ears into place. For the casting process he used plaster of Paris reinforced with sisal fibres. The original mould does not exist today as it had to be chipped away from the bust and discarded. Because, the body had been lying on a morgue slab for six months the back of the head appears flattened.

Before the ears were moulded, Lawson first had to convert the plaster mould of the ears into a wax mould. Then the ears were cast in the wax mould. This is because the ears were fragile and the wax mould could be easily melted away at the end of the process."

Notice that according to the wiki, the mold had to be 'chipped away from the bust' Although it had been reinforced with 'Sisal' that's a hemp type plant that was used to create a net or hessian  like fabric.

1.The problem here is that in a Reddit post, Professor Abbott told me that the Sisal made the plaster mold brittle and that's why it had to be chipped away. That's incorrect, Sisal was used to reinforce the plaster in the mold to prevent the mold from becoming brittle and from cracking, it did the job well because in the first instance in order to remove the mold from the subject, it had to be 'broken away' so that it could then be used to create the plaster bust.

The fact is that you would only use Sisal to make a reusable bust.

'Broken away' is the term used in Lawson's diary when describing the work and the term used by those engaged in this art to describe the careful removal of the mold from the subject. Sisal reinforcement was used in Lawson's process to reinforce the mold/cast of the Somerton Man's upper body. Hence, because the process was properly carried out using sisal reinforcement, we can safely say that the mold was not chipped away and discarded. It is only when you don't reinforce the cast/mold leaving just the plaster that you need to chip away at the cast. Sounds like a minor difference but it is critical.

2. Nowhere in the ten pages of the diary that we have covering the period of time does he mention that the mold had been destroyed.

3. Take a look at this image of the bust, notice how 'clean' it is, no additional marks that could have been caused by an accidental slip of a chisel.

4. Notice the hair on the bust, it had been treated with a liquid soap, it is called mold soap and it is used as a release agent, it's applied to the subject or the inner part of the mold to ensure you get that clean removal and preserve the features of the mold. 

5. In Lawson's diary he makes mention of meeting the Director to discuss 'duplicate copies' of the bust. He did not say 'make a new mold to produce duplicates of the bust', he said what he meant and he must have done so knowing at the time that the mold was still in existence. 

Sadly Professor Abbott's response to my last question on Reddit on this matter has somehow been lost and is no longer visible on Reddit.

With regards to the Wiki, I think it highly likely that it is a case of the statement made by Lawson being misinterpreted, he may have said 'broken away' or 'chipped away' in it's professional context and 'into pieces meaning  'in two pieces', I understand that he was of a fairly old age at the time of the interview and thus could easily have been misunderstood.

Whatever the case the above information and video provide evidence to support the view that the mold was still in existence as the mold making process was one that was designed to create a reusable mold and not a one time throw away version. In fact I would doubt that a two part, full surround type mold could be a throw away due to it's very nature. What I mean is that the two part mold had to be broken apart from the upper body of the Somerton Man and without the sisal reinforcement in the mold material it would have been rendered useless. If anyone has information to the contrary with supporting documents/images, it would be welcomed and it would be published.

There is more to be said about the Somerton Man bust and Jestyn's reaction and importantly more to be said about the appearance of the face, the next Post will reveal more.

I stand by my statement that according to this evidence, the mold from which the bust was made was not broken into small pieces and discarded, it was properly 'broken away' from the subject as you will see in the video above

Friday, 17 October 2014

Somerton Man: Fingerprinting Somerton Man, Professor Abbott Was Wrong..

How Fingerprints Are Taken From the Deceased

Professor Abbott Was Wrong

In a comment on Reddit yesterday, Professor Abbott was asked about the Somerton Man's fingerprints, the questioner focused on the fingerprint card with it's missing signatory and other information and also on the actual fingerprints.

The following question was put to him:

"I can see that you are really busy here but if I could ask you again about the markings on the thumb, first and middle fingers, they appeared to be consistent with an engraver's or similar hand. In particular I am referring to the grip between the thumb and fingers. Would you agree that at least it substantiates the claim that the fingerprints were of a right handed man?"

To which the Professor replied:

"It is a stretch to draw any conclusions from the blotchiness of the prints. It is not easy fingerprinting a dead body and getting all the prints lined up on a neat little chart. There are many other ways to substantiate that he was right handed. I have discussed these in my replies further down this page. I would rely on those and disregard the prints on the issue of handedness."

The Truth is...

The Somerton Man fingerprints were taken by James Patrick Durham, an acknowledged expert in his field as a scenes of crime man and lauded for his achievements. It is apparent that either Professor Abbott has been misguided by someone or he simply did not do the research, either way he got it significantly wrong. I say this because taking fingerprints from deceased persons is par for the course in Police work, it is easy to take fingerprints from the deceased, and the Police have and had at the time numerous ways it can be successfully done. Jimmy Durham knew his job and did it well. He would have had the tools to do it.

The Clues

The clues provided by the Somerton Man's fingerprints are vital, they tell us about his handedness and possible occupation. The markings on the right thumb, first and middle fingers show signs of wear which would support the view that he was right handed and that his occupation would have involved gripping a tool or instrument between his thumb and fingers. 

It has been already suggested that he may have been involved in engraving or leather work, we can add to that that he possibly was a violinist, cellist or a guitarist all of whom have similar grips however the fingers on the left hand would also show signs f wear due to the strings of the various instruments.

There are tools designed for the job called 'spoons' for example and even special ink rollers for the purpose:

There are other less savoury ways in which this can achieved but not wishing to spoil anyone's meal I'll limit the description to 'snippers' and 'straighteners'.

In the same series of questions the Professor did not know how fingerprints were distributed, the questioner, JAFO4, rightly said by photographs and referred to wire transfer of images but doubted their use for fingerprints. Here's an image of a Western Union early facsimile machine that was used to transmit fingerprints from the late 20's onwards:

Western Union Early Facsimile Machine Circa 1926

With all due respect to you Professor Abbott, this is an error on your behalf and your statements could mislead people who are genuinely doing their best to find answers. They put great faith in you and your statements, it behoves you to live up to their expectations and deliver complete answers minus any generalities and plus supporting evidence.

There are other blogs who, with a wave of their inexperienced, ill informed, unconsciously incompetent hands and surrounded by trolls 'wash over' and otherwise distort sound information in the Somerton Man case to the extent that it has taken on elements of cyber bullying in some instances. It simply is not tolerable and needs to be faced down whenever it appears and by whomever it is published.

TAMAM SHUD: Somerton Man Single Focus Blog

100 Posts and 50,000 + Page Views Since February 2013

Sincere thanks to all our regular visitors and followers for their emails, comments and ideas! Keep 'Em Coming!

We cannot place hands on heart and claim to be an expert in everything but what we know we know well and we have the experience to back it up.

Monday, 13 October 2014

Somerton Man: Keane, Secret Aircraft Production, The Code Page & A Communist

de Havilland Venom

More to come on this post, not as simple as some would think. 8th October 2014

About This Post

This is a lengthy post and there's great deal of background information that I wouldn't normally include but in this case I think it is particularly relevant. To give you an exec brief of the post, what we have is a known communist whose files have been held by ASIO since March 1949, Edward John Rice. He is before a Commission of Enquiry and a man named Keane is referred to as speaking out against Rice's political position and inflammatory statements by reporting him. We also have some detail on Lawrence (Lance) Louis Sharkey the then Chairman of the Communist Party in Australia on record as having suggesting the use of killing 'scabs' and strike breakers. Six years after this Commission of Enquiry, a man with the name Keane written on some of the clothing found in his suitcase, is found dead on Somerton Beach, he had been poisoned. This man has never been identified.

Does this mean that the man on Somerton Beach was the man 'Keane' from Fisherman's Bend? Does it mean that the Communist Party of Australia had a hand in the events leading up to the discovery of the body? The only way we will find out is to investigate the information provided here, There are numerous leads to be followed up not the least of which is information and photographs of the man Keane. There are a number of links and other starting points in this post and I look forward to comments and feedback from our audience which, by the way, has now cracked 2000 visits per month.

There are a number of links at the bottom of this page that those interested can follow and find additional information.

But first, here's the text version of the Newspaper article above:


'Once a Communist, Says Machinist SYDNEY.-He ceased to be a member of the Communist Party before it was declared an illegal organisation, Edward John Rice, machinist, said at the inquiry today into his suspension five weeks ago by the management of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation.
In his evidence Rice told the Commissioner of Inquiry that stewards.had made a round of the various departments, and had called for applications from employees willing to join the Volunteer Defence Corps in the factory. It was considered by shop stewards that a V.D.C. should operate. Not quite 60 applications had been received. Replying to Mr. Lamaro (assisting the Commissioner). Rice said he had no knowledge whether 70 or 80 per cent. of the applications had been from members of the Communist Party. 

Referring to a report of the personnel superintendent (Mr. Edmonds) that Rice and his colleagues had tried to control the air-raid precaution organisation In the factory. Rice said that the only approach they had made to the Minister for National Emergency Services (Mr. Heffron) was through a shop committee. The statement by Edmonds that he had told Naylor, a company official, that he had been to V.D.C. headquarters and had obtained permission to form a unit was more or less correct. 

NOTE THE AUTHOR Rice said that an article in 'The Bomber' dealing with canteens was not written by himself. He was only one of an editorial board of four members which had passed it for publication. Questioned regarding the evidence by Mrs. Dawkins. manageress of a benefits society controlled by the employees, Rice denied that he had asked her for paragraphs for the paper dealing with gossip-and scandal, or that he had threatened her that if she did not give him the materials he wanted he would influence the committee controlling her activities to withdraw support from her. Rice also denied a statement made by Mrs. Dawkins that he had spoken to her about the insecuritv of her position. 

Mr. Ashburner (for the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation).- What is the organisation that you report to at Daking House every afternoon when you leave this court? Rice--I never visit Daking House. Isn't it a fact that you are in favour of a revolution in this country?---No. I am not. Do you remember when you were distributing literature in the factory telling a man named Keane that, "'My one wish above all is to lead a revolution in this country, and when the shooting starts you want to shoot fast"?- No. I never said anything like that. You produce this man- Mr. Ashburner·-Don't worry. he will be produced. (Proceeding)'

Lance Sharkey

NOTE: For researchers, There is a trail that leads by default to Lance Sharkey who was Chairman of the CPA
(Communist Party of Australia) until 1948. This included the years 1940 to 1942 when the Communist Party was driven underground as a result of it being a banned organisation. It is said he directly contributed to the Malaysian insurrection in 1948 and in one instance is said to have told Malaysian Communists that the way to deal with 'scabs', (strike breakers) was to eliminate them. He qualified that by saying that this should happen only in the country areas and not the big cities. In particular he mentioned the mining industry.

You will note the interesting ear shape, this man could not be SM as he survived until 1968. The Ear may be of interest for other comparisons hopefully carried out by a properly qualified person/organisation. There are few images found of this man thus far, this particular one dates to the 1930's, he would have been around 52 years old in 1948.

In 1949, Sharkey was put on trial for sedition and was imprisoned for 3 years with hard labour. Was he guilty? Here's a link to an article written by Harold Rich, Sharkey's solicitor at the trial:
There is ample further information to be found on the web.


The name of Keane or  T. Keane has long been associated with the Somerton Man Case with case being the operative word as it was in the suitcase found at Adelaide Railway Station that this name was found on a number of items including a tie, a white laundry bag and some items of underwear,

People have searched far and wide for this person who has proven to be quite elusive. Local searches extended to Australia wide searches with numerous candidates put forward; to this point, all have been eliminated. Adelaide University has long ago given up the search which I suspect is more down to the attitude of  'If it isn't a simple answer then it must be wrong'.  

Having said that, giving in when you hit a hurdle is not something that I nor colleague Pete Bowes can live with and so I put forward yet another Keane only this time, we have a link that in my view brings together a man named Keane, the Communist Party, secret aircraft manufacture and a union organiser called Edward John Rice. The link to the Somerton Man Case is via the code page where an aircraft name, the Venom, was detected adds to the puzzle, read more below. (You may recall that some time ago we posed the question of Venom or Venona, we have dealt to an extent with the Venona possibility and now we have the Venom to investigate.)

Edward John Rice

This man is of great interest and this is not meaning any disrespect to his descendants. He was a known Communist prior to the hearing described in the newspaper article that heads this post and he does have a file on NAA which you are able to search. You will find it is held by ASIO and it has been since March 1949 so we do not know much about this man nor have I been able to find any images of him. I am sure there are some quality researchers out there who could find the appropriate information and perhaps images as well as details on the Victorian Branch of the Communist Party.

That's the summation of the newspaper article, top secret aircraft production at the time of the newspaper article, Communist activity suspected and two names; KEANE as a witness to the pro Communist activities of EDWARD JOHN RICE. There are a number of other leads in the article including the Volunteer Defence Corps issue, 'The Bomber' publication and Mrs. Dawkins, the Manageress of the Employee Benefits Society.

The Code Page & The Venom

Regular visitors to this blog will recall a post made some time ago regarding the finding of the following micro words and numbers on the Somerton Man code page and beneath the letters S and A in the last line of the code:

2YRS 42

Venom X4512

Earlier investigations suggested that the X4512 closely matched a tender document for the
De Havilland Venom aircraft which was issued in 1942.

1942 was the same year that the DH Vampire Jet first flew in the UK, the Vampire being the forerunner to the Venom. Read more on the Vampire below.

For those who are interested, the orange colour is applied on to the base image on the right to highlight aspects/characters on the code page.

Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation

The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation had a facility at Fisherman's Bend in Victoria and it's main purpose through the war years was to firstly produce Wirraway fighters then Beaufort Bombers and later Beaufighters for the RAAF. In the post war years they progressed to Stirling Bomber assembly and then on to the building of components for the de Havilland Vampire, at the time the world's fastest Jet fighter and forerunner to the Venom.

The Vampire first flew in fact in 1942 in the UK and it is believed that first tenders/expressions of interest for building the Venom were also released in 1942, it taking many months and even years for an aircraft to be designed and built. An example would be the Vampire which although first flying in 1942 it was 1945 before it was in front line service in the UK and 1947 before it was produced in Australia,

Fisherman's Bend Production

The place where it all came together, all the components including engines were assembled here and each aircraft flew from the airfield adjacent to the factory.

Below is a rare promotional video showing the operations at Fisherman's Bend in 1941:

Fisherman's Bend Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation.


An Adelaide Connection

The smartness of the design was such that the Beauforts and later, Vampires were actually made in separate sections and in different locations including Fisherman's Bend in Victoria, Chulora in New South Wales and Islington Railway Workshops in Adelaide. In Adelaide they made the Main Plane or central components of the aircraft. What makes this information of value is that this assembly method gives us an Adelaide connection, it could be that Rice and perhaps even Keane would have travelled between Fisherman's Bend and Islington as part of their employment.

This being the case then you could ask the question, would they as employees of the CAC have
needed a railway ticket or would they have been issued with a travel warrant that was handed in on completion of their journeys?


Chulora NSW

Chulora appeared to have been the busiest of the three locations charged with making the rear fuselage and central/cockpit/forward areas of the Beaufort:

For all researchers, Fisherman's Bend is in Victoria and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation was set up in 1936 to head off a perceived gap between Australian and Japanese military aircraft production capability. As things transpired it was an extraordinarily wise move given the vents in Dunkirk and the UK notifying Australia in 1941 that they could not expect any further shipments of weapons or military aid for the foreseeable future.

For those interested, here's a link to a large photo gallery of Marxists over the years:

Northern Star, Lismore NSW, Tuesday 4th August 1942:

Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesday 4th August 1942:
NO LONGER A COMMUNIST Dismissed Man's Evidence

Daily Advertiser, Tuesday 4th August 1942:

West Australian, Perth, Tuesday 4th August 1942:
AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEE. Inquiry Into Suspension.

Barrier Daily Truth, Broken Hill, Tuesday 4th August 1942:

Canberra Times, ACT, Tuesday 4th August 1942:
AIRCRAFT WORKER Suspension Inquiry SYDNEY, Monday.

Sydney Morning Herald, NSW, Saturday 1st August 1942:
SUSPENSION INQUIRY "Political Issue Feared"

Daily Advertiser, Wednesday 5th August 1942:
Rice Suspension, Security Department Intervention
Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday 5th August 1942
Inquiry Into SuspensionYou will notice that in the Daily Advertiser dated 5th August link that another man's name is mentioned, a Mr. Charles Keenan, however in another article from the Sydney Morning Herald dated 5th August he is also referred to as Frank Keenan, whether this is the same man we have as Keane is a matter to be researched. Which reporter got it right? The only definitive way to prove that it was not Keane is to research the employee names of CAC at the time. Any experienced takers?

I would stress that this at this point is a tenuous link and further research is being undertaken in the UK and here in Australia but it does seem more than coincidental that we have Adelaide, Keane, secret aircraft manufacture, ASIO and the CPA all mentioned and connected in the one post.

Somerton Man: Keane Tie, Trousers & Laundry Marks

Keane Tie With Laundry Marks?

I first posted on this subject 3.5 years ago whilst involved with an Adelaide University Facebook page. What you read here is a summation of the post and additional work done since that time.
In this post we'll look at the Keane Tie, the difference between laundry marks and dry cleaning marks, evidence that suggests that the marks have been written over, view more evidence that supports the Somerton Man was indeed right handed and show the brand name on the man's trousers.
More than a few people have been searching to find a T. Keane, the name and initial actually came from this tie, From my perspective that is not a letter T, it is more likely to be a number 7.

Let's go through the logic:
1. The other items bearing the name are two singlets and a white laundry bag, one with a spelling KEANE and the other apparently with the name spelt without the 'E' at the end. Having said that I would agree with Professor Abbot when he suggests that the 'E' may have washed or worn off, quite possible.

2. The image at the head of this post is a tie which looks to have been of a coarse material, but possibly man made, we do not know the kind of material from which the other garments were made. The laundry bag I believe was linen or similar.

The image to the right is a set of US Army Officer's ties with the 2nd in from the left being similar in texture to the Keane tie.

3.  The fact that it's a laundry bag is our clue, underwear would normally be laundered and not dry cleaned. The practice at the time to my best understanding was put them in a bag with a name on it then to identify each item to be laundered and place them in the bag.

4. Having said that it was quite common in those days for both dry cleaning and laundry to be processed on the same premises, the owner would bag everything up and hand their items in. 

5. Here's one view, the number '7' I referred to earlier could represent the 7th. item in the bag, singlets, underpants perhaps a shirt/collar  and a pair of trousers? That would make up the 7 items.

The image to the below is of a shirt with the owners name written on the collar, I found this some 3 or 4 years ago when first looking at the Keane issue. You will note that the band arund the shirt is actually from a dry cleaners but the shirt has been laundered indicating that it's one of those dual purpose shops that did both laundry and dry cleaning.


Dry Cleaning & Laundry Marks
I differentiate between Laundry Marks and Dry Cleaning marks, here's a close up of the Dry Cleaning marks found written on the rear pocket of the man's trousers:

Dry cleaning marks have numbers and apparently the last number represents the number of items in this particular order for dry cleaning. So, in the above you can see 3 sets of numbers, the first interestingly has 7 items, the next set has 3 items and the last set has just one item.

Laundry marks, to all accounts, were quite different often with a name being written directly onto the fabric. There are some very well experienced people including Byron Deveson who have carried out extensive research into this specific issue. If you are viewing this Byron, your contribution would be greatly appreciated.

The practice at the time was to write directly on to the items being cleaned. My understanding is that it was quite common to have both laundry and dry cleaning carried out in the same premises so a joint laundry/dry cleaning order was likely.

This being the case then the first number set of 1171/7 could be the same order which the tie formed a part of and hence the number 7 ahead of Keane.

Now let's look a little closer. Did you notice anything different or odd about the tie marking and the dry cleaning marks?

They're all quite dark, let's illustrate that, here's a picture of the trousers with a Detective pointing out the dry cleaning marks:

Notice how in the image to the right, the markings look to be quite faint, one reason for that is that the trousers had been cleaned of course and thus the numbers would have faded. In fact three sets of numbers suggests 3 separate cleaning events over a period of time which in turn means that one set would be relatively new and the other two progressively older and therefore more faded. At least they should be but they're not. Why is that?

I think this is due to the numbers and the marking on the tie and the trousers being overwritten by the Police to make them more readily visible.

In the image to the left you  may notice that the forward pocket has been folded over, you can see that to the right of pocket being pointed out. If you download this image and enlarge it you will be able to see where the right hand trouser pocket was repaired purportedly using the Barbour's thread found in the suitcase. The fact that it's the right hand pocket that needed repair supports the notion that the Somerton Man was indeed right handed.

The reason why a dry cleaning number wasn't placed on the tie is because it wasn't dry cleaned, it was laundered. Some items were simply not suitable for dry cleaning dependent on the nature of the fabric so the logic says that the items that can be dry cleaned will have numbers written on them that will with stand the harsh chemicals used in dry cleaning. However those items that are not able to be dry cleaned according to their type will need to be put through the laundry which requires a different kind of marking.

If this theory is correct then the initial 'T' never actually existed. The name KEANE is what everyone should be looking for.

For the record, if you look carefully at the image of the pocket with the laundry marks, you should be able to make out the brand name on the trousers, which I make out to be 'Elasta Strap'.  This is mentioned in the Gerry Feltus book, The Unknown Man, well worth reading and you can see the link to the right of this post.

To view the wording on the label you will need to rotate the image 180 degrees.You will also see that the material near to the seam is quite rough, apparently that was a method used at the time to provide a level of re-enforcing seams. Many garments similar to these trousers were made on a contract out sourced basis where women would take this kind of work into their homes and make the make the garment up.

Of note is that according to legend, laundry and dry cleaning marks were used by espionage agents as were handkerchiefs. There is no record of the SA Police having subjected any of the clothing to tests that would have revealed anything unusual or suspicious.

There is as always more research that can yet be done including finding out more  about dry cleaning and laundry methods of the time and how common it was for dry cleaning and laundry establishments to be combined. Maybe Byron will see this and lend a hand. I know we have a number of schools and colleges that follow this blog and I hope this makes an interesting part of your projects.

Please feel free to comment on this post, your contributions and thoughts are always welcome and valued.

Useful Links:

Popular Science June 1940, Laundry Marks

Searching Librarian, a mention of John Ruffles who did an enormous amount of research on this subject. I was privileged to be on a Facebook group with John, a very knowledgeable man who appears in one or two of the documentaries.

Modern Mechanix 1936

Thursday, 9 October 2014

Somerton Man: Lawsons Diary, Does the Mold Still Exist? An Interesting Discovery & Were Entries Altered?

Paul Lawson's Diary

21st/22nd June 1949

As you can see this is an image of 1 page from Paul Lawson's Diary, Lawson was the man from Adelaide Museum that created the now famous plaster bust of the Somerton Man. The entry you see above is for the 22nd June or so it appears because the the month name has been cut off in the scan.

There are two highlighted areas, one shows the entry covering Lawson's writing of an article for the AGMA,  It is unclear just what this acronym stands for so anyone with knowledge if you could leave a comment or email that would be appreciated. Ideally we find out the subject and content of Mr. Lawson's article.

The next highlighted area is very interesting because it reads ' Discussion with Director re duplicate casts of Somerton Body'. What that seems to suggest is that on 22nd June at least, the mold from which the bust was made was still in existence, it would have been in pieces, perhaps 4 or 5 but it certainly sounds as though it was kept otherwise why use the word 'duplicate'.

The next question is this, if the duplicates were discussed, were any more busts ever actually made? We don't have an answer to that because there were only 10 pages in the whole diary that were included in the PDF document that was created by Adelaide University I believe. The total number of pages would have been 180 given that it was a full year diary.

Here's another really interesting thought, if the original mold was around at this date, is it still around now? For all we know that is a possibility, just where it may be is another question. If it does still exist, it could be at the Adelaide Museum in amongst artefacts or perhaps the University has it or South Australian Library.  On the assumption that it is still in existence then there is likelihood of DNA directly from the Somerton Man's body could still be present and trapped in the mold material.
Much depends on the method of casting used and I make no pretence about being an expert in this field.  Adelaide sleuths, this is your cue!

June 17th & 18th 1949

In this next section we look at the nature of the Diary entries and showing instances of overwriting and indentation marks yet to be recovered, does this mean that some entries were altered or erased?

Here's what makes this document questionable, above is an image showing the Diary for the dates 17th and 18th June 1949. Look closely at the first highlighted area containing the words 'Somerton body'. You will see that it has in fact been overwritten and not that well. Similarly you can clearly see evidence of overwriting in the second highlighted area, the word 'Moving'. The question is who did  that, when did they do it and what other instances are there throughout the Diary? In this case there appears to be nothing untoward about the overwrite although it may suggest that it had been initially erased.

When we come to the entry for the 18th June, there is evidence of indented writing and some of it has been overwritten but some appears to have possibly been erased. Is it possible that all of the original writing faded and was overwritten? The good news is that the June 18th. erasure or fading may be able to be recovered. We can make an effort with this digital copy or we try to get access to the original Diary which again I think may be held by either the Museum, the Library or Adelaide University.

Here's a negative image of the June 18th entry. If you download a copy, with some adjustment, you will be able to make out the feint outline of words:

Ideally if you are in Adelaide you could so some hunting or if anyone from Adelaide University is looking at this post they may be able to shed some light on this issue and hopefully publish a full copy of the entire Diary.