UPDATED: DIMENSIONS
THE CODE FOUND
The torn slip of paper containing the words 'TAMAM SHUD', was provided to Adelaide University's Professor Derek Abbott by ex Detective Sergeant Gerry Feltus. Gerry is known as the author of the Unknown Man book which provides researchers and those otherwise interested in the Somerton Man case with an extensive set of very relevant information with names, dates, and other valuable data.
Gerry gave the TAMAM SHUD slip to Professor Derek Abbott so that he could examine the piece under Adelaide University's high-powered microscope. The image you see above came from one of those microscopic images taken by the University.
The image shows very clearly the presence of micro-written code within each letter of the words TAMAM SHUD.
Importantly, it is the same style of code that has also been found on the Somerton Man Code page and the copy of the Rubaiyat given to Army Lieutenant Alf Boxall which contained a handwritten inscription of Verse 70 from the Rubaiyat by the Nurse and signed off with the name JESTYN. The concealment method is known as INK H and is described within a Special Operations Executive manual that was provided to Australian Military Intelligence in 1943.
A link had been found between the INK H technique and a series of Australian Internment Camp banknotes which were designed by an internet, George Adams Teltscher. Mr' Teltsher, on his release from internment in Australia in 1942, returned to the UK where he worked for the British Military.
The precise method used to reveal the expertly concealed code will be made available. Essentially I used some very simple techniques based on those used by Intelligence agents in WW2 and after.
The task ahead is to decipher if we can, the micro-written letters and numbers. I have been in touch with Professor Abbott regarding these developments.
TORN SLIP DIMENSION/SCALE:
You can see that the width of the torn piece is approximately 45 mm. Note that the width of the crossbar of the letter T is approximately 4mm
In the image below you can see the Microscope view taken by Adelaide University, it also shows a scale which appears to conflict with the dimension shown above:
TAMARA, RE SCALE. Hi Tamara, I have updated the post for you to include a scaled image of the torn slip and a brief explanation of how microscope scaling works. Not quite as straightforward as you might think. Hope this helps.
ReplyDeletePete, re the other Rubaiyat. Strictly speaking, hearsay evidence is defined as, ' what a person has heard another person, not being the accused, say. Thus it relates to verbal evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe Rubaiyat being a document is therefore 'documentary evidence.'
That document is mentioned in numerous other documents including internal police reports. Importantly we have two more documents tied to it both of which are photographs. One being the torn piece with 'the writing on it's according to Jimmy Durham's statement together with copies of that piece attached to his evidence and later handed out to the press for circulation. The other piece is a photograph of the 'code page' that had been marked over. That piece was apparently not found until after the inquest but the book itself is mentioned in an internal police report.
What we have then is documentary evidence in the form of the torn piece and photographs thereof with documented, witness, confirmation that it came from the book. Plus we have copies of the code page on which were found telephone numbers, proven to be real by virtue of one of those numbers being Jestyn's. There is also an internal police report that describes the book as having the 'back leaf missing' It's reasonable to conclude that a book existed.
Pete, First off, I was not referring to newspaper reports but to previous research and investigation. Here's a link to a post originally written in 2014, updated in 2020 but having its roots in work done some years earlier. In the post you will find a copy of the 2 page Police report:
ReplyDeletehttp://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-somerton-man-rubaiyat-some-answers.html
You will see that the torn piece is an integral part of the issue both in the Police report and on this page. Somewhere amongst the files I have documentation regarding the scientific, microscopic analysis of the torn piece paper and the paper from which the book was made, I will have to dig that out or perhaps you could do some searches, maybe message Professor Abbott who has that information to hand?, the documentary evidence exists.
There was a book, it was published by Whitcombe and Tombs in 1941 according to the report. The torn piece was microscopically examined and was said to be 'similar' paper to that found in the Rubaiyat.
Who knows maybe it still is in existence.
Professor Abbott kindly responded to my query. He said that the matching was done by a specialist paper analyst based in Leigh Street, Adelaide and suggested you could find more in the Littlemore papers plus Detective Brown's comments regarding how the matching process was carried out. On the HEARSAY rule:
ReplyDeleteThe hearsay rule is contained in section 59 of the Evidence Act 1995 which states:
“Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation.”
that's the actual law but as you say Milongal it depends on the jurisdiction. And in the case to hand we are talking about physical evidence. If Pete has evidence to the contrary that he can substantiate then that's all to the good.
Might add a little to the hearsay discussion:
ReplyDeletePrivy Council ruling:
(https://criminalcpd.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Hearsay.pdf)
Why is hearsay admissible in some circumstances?
The common law cases are, in many respects, attempts to find instances
where the evidence, although hearsay, is reliable, and, because of that
reliability, to make the evidence admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay.
I think the above would characterise the information supplied by Police regarding the book and the torn slip. In reality of course it is the only 'evidence' that we have.
It is hearsay and inadmissible
when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is
contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible
when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of
the statement, but that it was made.
And here's a link to another, earlier post dated 2016, in this one I looked at how the code page may have looked on the back, dust cover, of the book. The aspect ratios were incorrect and that was updated in the 2021 verion of the post.
http://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2016/06/somerton-man-books-code-page-aspect.html
Then of course there is this, it's the definition on which most if not all rules of evidence is based, Common Law:
ReplyDeleteHearsay is commonly understood as evidence from a witness attesting to what he or she has heard another person say about facts, though the witness did not perceive those facts personally. The common law has long recognised a general prohibition against the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
And that is what my definition was in the first instance. You see serving Police officers were trained to use common law in the first instance and they generally used that but could later of course modify it to reflect legislated rules. The bottom line my definition was not incorrect, what we have is a case of someone diving in having read the first few lines on a Google search. You should have looked deeper.
THE CONCLUSION
The only real evidence we have is that of the Police officers concerned in the original investigation. That evidence would qualify as 'reliable evidence' within the meaning of the 'admissible hearsay' definition. It is understood that there are those who have a different opinion but, these same people do not, as far as I have seen, offer any evidence to support their views. Without supporting evidence then we are left with what we have. If you read through the links to previous posts shown here, you will see the position I have taken in that according to the evidence there was a book but just which edition we do not know.
So, Pete, I my statements are not incorrect and I have provided you answers to the questions you asked. It appears that they don't meet with the needs of your theory. You have yet to establish that there wasn't a book. I have work to get on with now so I wish you well with it. Take care of yourself mate.
Pete, to your question as to whether Alf knew Jestyn's name. He definitely did and there is strong corroborative evidence to support that statement.
ReplyDeletePete, to your comment about the printer. I think by digging a little deeper that printers by the very nature of their job need a an extensive knowledge of paper types and composition. It would be wrong to dismiss that necessity.
ReplyDeletePete Apologies for the delay in responding. So where we are up to now is that youvagree that the printer is probably qualified to examine the nature of the paper in the torn piece and the book. You also seem to agree with my posts as per theinks supplied where you can clearly see the size of the torn piece and how it is considerably smaller than the gap in the press published book.
ReplyDeleteNext?
Pete, by the way I if you feel like taking a bit of a rest, just let me know, no problem with that at all.
ReplyDeletePete, Dearie me, what shall we do now. It seems to me that you've abandoned your search for the truth and appear to be looking for yet another fantasy to pursue.
ReplyDeleteAh well, let's look at your ambit claims.
ReplyDelete1. Th needle, there is one and you'll find it where most people park needles with attached threads. It's about central to the card, at a slight angle, you'll see that it's thicker than the thread and you should be able to make out the thread looped through the eye of the needle.
2. The matchbox, that appeared in a newspaper article only and, as you point out that's hearsay. The sworn evidence at the inquest trumps that claim.
3. The 4 A's, interesting but it didn't go anywhere. For example, the 7 groups of letters beginning with M, when you do that you will find the acrostic authenticator word DANETTA in the numerical sequence as per Tibor Kaldor's last letter, the Verse 70 inscription and more. All substantiated and you can test it. See the difference?.
Short break, telephone call.
Back again, this is getting tiresome.
ReplyDelete4. Shoe cloth. The absence of a shoe brush and a cloth were covered years ago on the early Adelaide Uni FB page.
5. Nazi employees in SA, interesting and worth pursuing although you will find earlier references to it they don't mention the secret deals done at Government level.
6. Striped trousers, two views from two witnesses are quite common. Simply selecting one doesn't add up to a major find. It is unlikely that it will play any part in the final game.
Bloomin phone...
Pete, finally, in my view the reason why you can't get access to the FB page you mentioned is probably because your reputation precedes you. You're a known troll, you associate with other known trolls. You can be not only be uncivil in your dealings with others you can be downright abusive. I once trusted you and treated you as a friend, that hasn't been the case for a while, you need to ask yourself why that should be.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to theevidence I have in relation to Alf and Jestyn, I decide when and how I release that, not you.
You have some choices now, you can start mending fences and building bridges or you can just throw in the towel and carry on the way you always have. Your choice and I really do wish you well.