It seems that there has been, yet again, some chatter lately about the fingerprint issue. In the post below, published originally in April 2014, you will read about the issue of the lack of fingerprints in the Somerton Man case and the thoughts I had and published at the time. (See note at base)
24th March 2022I have updated this post and incorporated one of the comments I made some time ago regarding reasons for fingerprinting that may help researchers who don't have any knowledge of Police procedures when it comes to fingerprinting. I must stress that my time in the service was in the 60s so it would not be surprising to find additional information is available.
Here's a link to an informative video and page...
24th March 2022
Here's a link to an informative video and page...
WHY NO FINGERPRINTS?
First Published 4th April 2014
ITEMS & PEOPLE NOT FINGERPRINTED :
If there was one aspect of this case that is of greatest concern it would be the absence of fingerprints.
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 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.
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.
Bear in mind that the owner's stub of the left-luggage ticket was not found on the body, and, indeed, it has never been found.
- The suitcase not fingerprinted
- The torn piece not fingerprinted,
- Bus tickets not fingerprinted,
- Shoes not fingerprinted
- Glass dish not fingerprinted
- Screwdriver not fingerprinted
- Scissors not fingerprinted
- Razor not fingerprinted/box containing razor not fingerprinted
- Razor strop not fingerprinted
- Envelopes not fingerprinted
- Paper sheets not fingerprinted
- Handkerchiefs not examined
- Jestyn was not fingerprinted.
- Alf Boxall not fingerprinted
- Railway station Left Luggage staff not fingerprinted
- 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 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.
Was there a reason to take fingerprints from the items found and associated with the man? Quite definitely. More to follow.
UPDATE: REASONS FOR FINGERPRINTING
(Taken from comments for this post)
Here we are again. Was there a reason to take fingerprints from the items associated with the Somerton Man? Yes, and it's a compelling one.
There are those in the Somerton Man space who have difficulty understanding the issues surrounding sudden, violent or suspicious deaths.
Any serving or ex-Police Officer would know the reasons for taking fingerprints, from this body in particular, well.
Let's briefly walk through this:
The suitcase was found on January 14th but, after a cursory inspection, it was left at the railway station for some days, my understanding is that it was done just in case someone called to collect it.
And that fact alone is a strong indication that either there was doubt about who owned the case or the Police thought that someone associated with the man may have turned up to collect it. In other words, there was already a suspicion that a crime may have been committed.
Bear in mind that the owner's stub of the left-luggage ticket was not found on the body, and, indeed, it has never been found.
More recently (I have posted ion this blog on the issue of just who took the suitcase into the Left Luggage department SEE POST HERE...)
The question should be asked, what made the Police so certain the case belonged to the man and when did they arrive at that conclusion? One thing is certain, at the time the case was discovered, they apparently, didn't know. Let's leave that discussion for another time.
So, here we have a suspicious death, the Police find a suitcase with, apparently, nothing to link the man to it. That is, nothing unless you fingerprint the suitcase and some if not all of the contents and that is the action that could and should have been taken.
Taking the prints would have immediately and positively linked the man to the suitcase and perhaps have uncovered other fingerprints or not. For some reason, it apparently wasn't done, at least there is no record of it having been done
Taking the prints would have immediately and positively linked the man to the suitcase and perhaps have uncovered other fingerprints or not. For some reason, it apparently wasn't done, at least there is no record of it having been done
In the real world of investigations, there are a number of reasons to take fingerprints:
1. An obvious one is for identification purposes.
2. Another is to link a suspect to a scene of the crime which in itself dictates that prints may need to be taken from objects associated with either an unidentified body, an unidentified living person or a suspect (as in previous criminal history).
3. Other instances of fingerprinting would be members of the Police or intelligence services, Members of the Armed forces, and Internees. (All Police officers are fingerprinted on joining the service as a matter of course, this is done so that, for example, when a scene is examined and fingerprints found, those officers who attend that scene can be eliminated. (That isn't strictly speaking correct, there have been cases where officers were actually involved in a crime and attended the scene)
An example of what happens to fingerprints:
Interestingly, when the Derna arrived in Fremantle on October 22nd, 1948, there were according to records, 7 stowaways found and their thumbprints were taken and forwarded to Canberra. They were not forwarded to NSW Central fingerprint office as were the prints of the Somerton Man, as far as I am aware. That is one issue that is worth following up.
On the subject of the Somerton Man's fingerprints and the card they were on, you will notice that the officer taking the prints did not sign off on them. They would be useless in a court, for example, there is no certificated proof that the prints are actually those of the Somerton Man.
And there you have it. For the uninformed, you now have some very good reasons why the Police could have, should have and maybe even did take fingerprints from the suitcase and its contents.
My schedule at the moment is very full and therefore I have little time to enter further into a discussion on this issue. I hope this clarifies things for you Pete.
Nice one GC
ReplyDeleteHere we are again. Was there a reason to take fingerprints from the items associated with the Somerton Man? Yes, and it's a compelling one.
ReplyDeleteThere are those in the Somerton Man space who have difficulty understanding the issues surrounding sudden, violent or suspicious deaths. Any serving or ex Police Officer would know the reasons for taking fingerprints, from this body in particular, well.
Let's briefly walk through this.
The suitcase was found on January 14th but, after a cursory inspection, it was left at the railway station for some days, my understanding is that it was done just in case someone called to collect it. And that alone is a strong indication that either there was doubt about who owned the case or the Police thought that someone associated with the man may have turned up to collect it. In other words, there was a suspicion that a crime may have been committed. Bear in mind that the owners stub of the left luggage ticket was not found on the body, and, indeed, it has never been found.
The question should be asked, what made the Police so certain the case belonged to the man and when did they arrive at that conclusion? One thing is certain, at the time the case was discovered, they apparently, didn't know. Let's leave that discussion for another time.
So, here we have a suspicious death, the Police find a suitcase with, apparently, nothing to link the man to it. That is, nothing unless you fingerprint the suitcase and some if not all of the contents and that is the action that could and should have been taken. Taking the prints would have immediately and positively linked the man to the suitcase and perhaps have uncovered other fingerprints or not. For some reason it wasn't done.
In the real world of investigations there are a number of reasons to take fingerprints, an obvious one is for identification purposes. Another is to link a suspect to a scene of crime which in itself dictates that prints may need to be taken from objects associated with either an unidentified body, an unidentified living person or a suspect (as in previous criminal history).
Other instances of fingerprinting would be members of the Police or intelligence services, Members of the Armed forces and Internees.
Interestingly, when the Derna arrived in Fremantle on October 22nd 1948, there were according to records, 7 stowaways found and their thumbprints were taken and forwarded to Canberra. They were not forwarded to NSW Central fingerprint office as were the prints of the Somerton Man, as far as I am aware.
On the subject of the Somerton Man's fingerprints and the card they were on, you will notice that the officer taking the prints did not sign off on them. They would be useless in a court for example.
And there you have it. For the uninformed, you now have some very good reasons why the Police could have, should have and maybe even did take fingerprints from the suitcase and its contents.
My schedule at the moment is very full and therefore I have little time to enter further into a discussion on this issue. I hope this clarifies things for you Pete.