Tuesday 3 September 2013

Somerton Man: 14 items could have been dusted for fingerprints but weren't. Why?

There are so many inconsistencies related to this case, lots of unanswered questions, many of which could remain that way. However that does not mean we have to stop asking questions in an effort get at the truth.

Fingerprints, or rather the lack of them, being taken apart from the Somerton Man's, is a case in point:

Somerton Man's Fingerprints ( we think)



A small point worth considering is that the same chemicals and techniques that were used to lift fingerprints from paper or soft materials were also used to reveal secret writing, the chemical being iodine. Was this the technique used by Detective Jimmy Durham in an earlier case when he famously found and recovered fingerprints from a book and proved his case?

Read more here:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/30759118...

At least 14 items that could have and should have been fingerprinted but apparently, not one of them was.


Given that experience, why was it that the Omar book and the torn piece were apparently never examined for fingerprints? Would the Somerton Man's prints have been found on them? or would someone else's? Perhaps more than one?

To all accounts that torn piece still exists and when enquiries were made of a person well connected wuth this case, they were dismissed as being too difficult or just impossible after all this time.

In short, the technology existed to lift fingerprints from the book and the torn 'TAMAM SHUD' piece from the book and other items.

Here's a list of those things that could have and should have been subject to fingerprinting:
  • The Omar book
  • The torn piece
  • The Bus and Train tickets
  • The Letter cards
  • The handles of the brush, the knife, the scissors and other tools from the suitcase
  • The glass dish
  • The suitcase
  • His shoes
  • The lining of the pocket that had laundry marks
More than that Jimmy Durham had specific experience in the techniques necessary to lift prints from difficult surfaces but not a word of prints being taken is to be found amongst any of the documents. Why?

In the next post I will publish a summation and an account of what I believe really happened on that night.
Share:

3 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. SUITCASE & FINGERPRINTS. I posted this just over 10 years ago and yet again, the armchair gurus storm in as if they found this important piece of information, they DID NOT. To post on this material without acknowledging the original source is just plain PLAGIARISM, it was just what you would expect from the self acknowledged plagiarist Pete Bowes and his new offsider, the troll John Sanders. For the record I have posted on this a number of times since so they simply cannot claim they didn't know. It's tacky, it's unprofessional and it shows a complete lack of integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He never stops does he? Nothing original of his own to cover so he uses the ideas from your blog and often.

    ReplyDelete

Hi
Welcome to the Tamam Shud Blog, widely regarded as the most trusted fact and evidence-based blog on the Somerton Man case.
Visit our YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOamLze8PyNDafjjBGGngJQ

ABOUT US and OUR RECORD

Learn more about, when the blog started our location plus a long list of 'finds' and new evidence discovered by this blog