SUPERINTENDENT LEONARD BROWN
SAPOL
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.
NOTE:
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
RE deduction #1 - If the phone number is written in micro-writing then surely it's a clandestine way of passing it to an associate (or equivalent). Wouldn't this mean that Jestyn _could_ have written it? To me the fact it was in such small writing (presumably in an attempt to hide it) would imply that it wasn't jotted down by someone, but deliberately placed there - which then makes it more likely that she (or someone who was trying to put someone in contact with her) put it.
ReplyDeleteRE the Uni of Ad. Their only interest in the case is via Abbott. Abbott is a professor of Electrical Engineering, and I'm not sure searching for microwriting fits into that field (it would be something that perhaps the Computer Science department would do - but they're not necessarily interested just because Abbott is (and his interest isn't necessarily professional).
NB: Still haven't found where the first mention of X3239 is. It was asserted by someone (not GC, possibly PB) that "That's what Brown said", but I've yet to find the actual number stated as being the number in the Rubaiyat in anything more than 20 years old. Is n't it possible there was a different phone number that connected the case to Jestyn (rather than Prosper) and that modern-day sleuths have ASSUMED it was X3239 because that's the number they can link to 90A Moseley (and therefore Jestyn).
Your comment, especially the NB section, stirred up some other thoughts. You are quite right, nowhere does Brown or anyone else mention that the number was X3239 and at the time that might be because they were trying to keep the identity of the nurse a secret. But, it is very possible that the number that Brown rang was one that was used by Jestyn for her 'nursing' business. That number, I think, would have been an Adelaide central number for their Hindley street office. Brown rang, she answered and then an appointment was made. That also clears up the nagging issue regarding the X3239 being a number you would find in other States besides South Australia.
DeleteI honestly hadn't considered that before and I thank you for your input.
TBH, it's still possible the number (whatever number) wasn't from SA... but the first reference to X3239 is in more recent investigation, so while it might be probable, it's by no means final.
DeleteBasically I find it difficult to resolve in my head how they KNEW the number was for J not for P. The simplest explanation I can come up with, is that 3239 wasn't that number.
I think you understood the point I was trying to make.
Totally agree, it makes good logical sense. A thought that Clive had was that perhaps the W1048 written by Gerry Feltus on the back of his book could have been that number, it was an unlisted number which lends weight to your argument, effectively with it being unlisted it could only have been given to SM by someone close to her or even Jestyn herself.
DeleteThanks for the comment, I don't disagree that the number was a clandestine communication method. The question as to whether or not it was Jestyn is fair enough. Here's why I think it was not from her. Starting from the position that the use of micro writing was a standard technique so it would have been by all parties concerned or implicated, the page itself is literally covered in examples of micro written letters, numbers and a few words. If she were sending the number to someone the recipient would have their work cut out finding it. Bear in mind that the images we have (And there is at least one more of the code page) are of indentations left as the result of someone writing on another piece of paper laid on top of the back of the book. So, mainly for that reason I say that she did not write that number on the page. Did she write anything else on the page at another time? If we take the lines beginning with M as being alternate sends and receives then it may be the case.
ReplyDeleteThe skill required to recover the indentations is funnily enough known as 'indented writing recovery' there are a number of aspects related to it including IR and UV photography and lighting, oblique lighting, strobe lighting and then we get into the realms of various chemicals that could now be used on at least one piece of evidence being the torn piece. If you google 'questioned documents' and .Indented writing recovery' you will find masses of information. Whilst Prof Abbott is an electrical engineer and a good one at that, he does have photography skills and I wouldn't doubt his ability to quickly learn the other techniques. I can say that due to personal experience of the man.
The telephone number was picked up by Det Brown 70 years ago but that number and anything that would identify the lady concerned was kept under wrapsat least until 2009. I think it waqs that year that the FB page created by Prof Abbott, (World Search for a rare copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam) was launched. The number was common knowledge amongst members of that group at that time as was the name. It was also well known amongst another group 'The Inner Sanctum'. I was a member of both groups. There was an unwritten 'code of practice' that we wouldn't publicly speak of the number or the name. That stems mainly from the position of Gerry Feltus who had long insisted on secrecy when it came to personal information of those who were of interest in the case. Gerry is a well respected man and is very much an old school copper. I personally hold him in high regard as do many others. I think that you may find in the near future that the number was indeed found on the back of the book and it, along with other information found there was well known by the police and other agencies at the time.
My question is how did they know that the number was a South Australian number? That same number existed in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT at the same time. It has long been known and rpeated recently by John Sanders that it was Detective Brown who took the intiative and called the number on the book and Jestyn answered. But that does not a suspect make. I think that there must be something else that pushed the Police in that direction.I hope this helps clarify the situation a little. Thanks again for your comment.
Interesting how quickly information surfaced, according to GF (Pages 104-107), the police were handed the Rubaiyat on Saturday 23 July 1949. By Tuesday 26 July 1949, Canney had already spoken to Jessie. This would suggest that they worked over the weekend examing the Code page or, did an outside source point them to Jessie? Clive
ReplyDeleteClinical Distributors, 200 Hindley St-I cannot trace any phone number
ReplyDeletefor this business. In "The Advertiser" 1-3-47 Page 16 a Mr Thomson was
advertising motors at this address, advising business hours only.
Prestige Motors, 222 Pulteney St- in 1947 their telephone number was Cen
4349, and by July 1948 it had changed to W 1015.
I wonder if GF was giving a clue in his book, using "Prestige" as
"Prosper's" name? and W 1048 on the back of his book-could be W1015 hidden? Clive