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, 25 September 2018

Somerton Man: Why No Fingerprints?


First Published 4th April 2014

If there was one aspect of this case that is of greatest concern it would be the absence of fingerprinting.

  1. The suitcase not fingerprinted, 
  2. The book or the torn piece not fingerprinted, 
  3. Bus tickets not fingerprinted, 
  4. Shoes not fingerprinted
  5. Glass dish not fingerprinted
  6. Screwdriver not fingerprinted
  7. Scissors not fingerprinted
  8. Razor not fingerprinted
  9. Razor strop not fingerprinted
  10. Envelopes not fingerprinted
  11. Paper sheets not fingerprinted
  12. Handkerchiefs not examined
  13. Jestyn not fingerprinted. 
  14. Alf Boxall not fingerprinted
  15. Etc. Etc.

I can't find any reference in the evidence or notes that states that anything or anyone was fingerprinted with the lone exception of SM himself. If anyone has found such a reference it would be greatly appreciated if it could be shared. As it stands, this may be the only suspicious death dealt with by Police in Australia where fingerprints weren't taken from evidence.

To add some further weight to the view, the statistical likelihood of a male in their 40s taking their own life using poison and choosing a beach to do it is hundreds of thousands to one. I am sure the mathematicians amongst us could provide the precise numbers. The only similar event that gets close was the Marshall case and he was found poisoned, a copy of the Rubaiyat, on a headland not that far from the sea and the rest we are all very familiar with.

Whilst SM's death may not have appeared to have been suspicious when he was discovered at the beach, it would have fallen into the category of sudden, unexplained and therefore suspicious until such time as proven otherwise. In fact it was at the RAH that the examining Doctor mentioned the likelihood of poisoning. That's almost as good as it gets as far as timing is concerned and the suspicious aspect should have immediately kicked off the correct Police procedures for what could be the most serious offence in the book.

The SA Police in those days was run very much like a military organisation, to the book.

Just months earlier to the discovery of SMs body Jimmy Durham went to a great deal of trouble taking fingerprints from a book that had been stolen from a second-hand shop and getting a conviction from it, why then did he not do so for the SM case? He, or someone, went to huge lengths to examine and photograph the impressions left on the inside of the book but didn't apparently look for fingerprints with the obvious ones being SMs.

It is just possible that finding the answer to the question of why fingerprints were not taken could lead to, at the very least, some very viable options as to who or which organisation had knowledge of or sanctioned this apparent killing.

Sunday, 23 September 2018




As promised and after a lengthy period of research followers of this and other blogs have sent me photographs of who they believe our two erstwhile opponents really are.

Yes, the clue, apparently was staring all of us who read A A Milnes book Winnie the Pooh, in the face, hidden in plain sight you could say:


From this day forth Mr. Sanders you shall be known as POOH!

But wait! What of  MILONGAL!, with unerring logic, my trusted friends have uncovered the most likely character would be a close associate of Pooh. One who was given to negativity and despair, you guessed it! It's:


From this day forth Milongal you shall be dubbed EEYORE!

And just to add credibility to their claim, they managed to clandestinely snap this amazing photo of the two of them together:

Pooh & Eeyore working on their next fascinating comment!

I hope you both take this in the spirit with which it was intended, sometimes a little humour can go a long way!

Your friend:

Must dash, I only have 14 hours to save the Earth :)
Have a Great Day!

Wednesday, 19 September 2018


Page 196

This image is taken directly from the NAA file, Part 1 of 2 and page 196. Link here to all docs

If you examine this carefully you will be able to see pencil indentation markings covering the entire page. These markings are letters and numbers of varying sizes from average to very small. These are not digital artifacts; they are pencil indentations.

Looking for a particular number is like looking for a needle in a haystack, well not quite!

Below I have highlighted where the number X3239 is to be located and in fact, you should be able to just make it out:

You can also see many examples of letters and numbers and in the next image I have highlighted just some of the areas that you can observe:

All that I have done here is to adjust some colourisation settings to sharpen the images, the next step is to use specific lighting and camera techniques to hopefully enhance our view. It may take me some days to get to this but it will be done.

This last image for this post, of course, shows the bottom right corner of the code page, in it, you can clearly see letters and numbers in a stack:

Working through the document again after some years, it's amazing how much more you can find. Indeed it appears that I was not the first person to think that Fedosimov was the Somerton Man. More on that in a later post.

Monday, 17 September 2018



Len Brown was the detective who played a lead part in the Somerton Man case investigation. It was he who discovered the suitcase and it was he who made the statement that confirmed the existence of micro writing on the code page and that it was found beneath the code:

'Len remembers that the code and nurse’s phone number were in the back of the book in pencil. The phone number was in very tiny lettering. Len stated that the phone number was written under the code. '

See Adelaide University Wiki on Len Brown

What is to be deduced from this information?

There are three deductions that we can make:
1. The code page was not written by Jestyn, she would have no need  to write down her own number
2. Given the earlier post mention of similar telephone numbers being found in other States, we can assume that the telephone number was not the only piece of information that pointed to Jestyn.
3. That given the earlier work that has already been done on the code page by this blog, we can assume that there is more similarly coded information to be recovered which may well contain more telephone numbers.

Len Brown's comments substantiate the work done here. We have separately always maintained the view that the code page contained micro written code and Len's words confirm that fact.

Where to from here?

Bear in mind that the micro written code technique was identical to that used by the UK's SOE and is described in one of their manuals and known as INK H. In 1948 it was still a secret method. Whoever wrote the page was aware of just how the code could be implemented. There can be little doubt that a similar method would have been employed by other nations intelligence agencies.

This does not necessarily mean that this person was spying at the time, but it does mean that the person had more than likely been trained in the method. It may be that once the code in its entirety has been recovered that we find evidence of espionage but at this moment there is insufficient evidence to support that claim.

The next step is to carry out an in-depth examination of the code page using whatever technical means we have available. There is at least one university who state that they can recover the necessary details from the existing 400 dpi image of the code page. Sadly, the University of Adelaide has not expressed an interest for reasons best known to themselves.

Len Brown was a hardworking and respected officer who rose through the ranks serving in CIB and Prosecutions. He had worked on a number of high profile cases. He was the recipient of the Queens Police Medal and the National Service Medal.  Make no mistake that his position was a very responsible one, he would have worked extremely hard to get there and even harder when he achieved the rank of Superintendent. He was and still is deserving of great respect. 

Sadly there are those in recent times who have set out to demean, belittle, denigrate and in my view defame this man, to make things worse, they do so under the cloak of anonymity. To do that to a man who is now in his 100th year is beneath contempt. That approach does not sit well with me personally and I know that his relatives are of the same view.

NEXT POST: Another Major Link In The Puzzle

Thursday, 13 September 2018


Detective Superintendent Brown

This document is one of 177 pages of notes made by interviewer Stuart Littlemore in preparation for the 1978 TV Documentary about the Somerton Man.

The particular page that you can see above deals with part of his interview with Detective Superintendent Brown who, at that time was a 'sprightly' 60-year-old man and  sharp minded.

The discussion in point was about the phone numbers, plural, there were two numbers with Jestyn's apparent number being X3239.

The other number according to Det Sup Brown was that of a local business and they had been contacted with a negative response, no one recalled the man had called them at that number.

What can we deduce from that statement?

We are left with two main options, firstly the statement could be read as is and the lead becomes a dead end. Secondly and equal in likelihood is that the number may not have been a South Australian number but instead it may have been a Victorian or another State number as pointed out in our previous post on this matter. If you recall, we were able to readily find that the number X3239 existed in Victoria, Canberra and Brisbane at the time.

If we focus on Victoria being the most likely State home for the X3239 number then the same could also be said of the second yet unpublished number, it was not a South Australian business number but could well have been a Victorian number.


Stay with me on this for just a little while longer. An assumption was made in 1948 that the Somerton Man had probably arrived by train from either Broken Hill or Melbourne, there is no published basis for that assumption apart from the suitcase that was recovered at the railway station in January 1949.

Doubts have understandably been raised about the origin of the suitcase and its content as indeed they have similarly been raised about the discovery of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam book.


It is the book and more precisely the X3239 telephone number that provides us with one of the only known facts that positively links Jestyn to the book and its owner. I say 'owner' because we do not know just who owned that book and I say 'one' as there is arguably other information that could provide that link. But, for now let's keep the focus on these telephone numbers.


Again we are operating in the field of assumptions. It has long been assumed that it was the Somerton Man who owned the book and it was he who had written down the numbers, although the only evidence we have to support that is that the book was found in Glenelg by a Chemist from the area on an undetermined date and it was months later that it was rediscovered. 

True to say that the torn piece bearing the words 'TAMAM SHUD' had earlier been found n a hard to find waistband fob pocket of the trousers that the Somerton Man was wearing at the time his body was discovered.

The torn piece was matched, though not by its shape, to the last page in the newly found book, the match was based on it being of a similar type of paper stock to that of that book. What we can say with a degree of certainty is that the torn piece found on the man came from the book. We cannot say that the man had removed it from the last page because there is simply no evidence to support it. 

The book and the torn piece are separate pieces of evidence and we should address them that way until fresh evidence is forthcoming.

It is quite possible that the person who ditched the book into the Chemists car at 'around the time of the Parafield Air Show' was not the Somerton Man. In fact, we do not know for sure that the book was ditched at the time of his death, it could have been sometime after that occurrence.

To the point, whilst the assumption about the journey made by the Somerton Man has him boarding a train in Victoria, no assumption was made that the telephone numbers on the back of the book were also from Victoria. We can find no records of the Victorian lead being followed up. It begs the question, 'Why not?'

If we accept the strong possibility that the numbers were of an origin other than South Australia, does that reinforce the case for SM also coming from Victoria or is there another possibility? Could it be that the book belonged to another man from that time who we know came from Victoria and had connections there? Tibor Kaldor perhaps?

There'll be another post on this subject in the next week.