THE SUITCASE...
First published September 2014
I first published the post on the suitcase in 2014 and for most of the intervening time I have maintained the position as first muted by fellow researcher John Ruffles, that the contents of the case as well as the possessions found on the Somerton Man, were 'litter'. In other words, they were 'planted' there to do one thing and one thing only and that is to totally confuse anyone who attempted to use the items in an attempt to identify the man. In that regard, they were extraordinarily successful.
In the post linked here as well as in a dedicated page on the topic, you will see some brief notes and many images of the various items found in the suitcase.
In this next post originally dating from 2016, you will read more about the Barbours waxed thread and other issues related to the use of that thread.
But the purpose of today's post is not to discuss the whys and wherefores of the individual items. We are here to consider the vexing question of just when was the suitcase deposited at Adelaide Railway Station?
Harold Rolfe North was an attendant on the day that the case was deposited but it was not he who took in that particular case, another attendant Mr R Craig was responsible for that but unfortunately he was away on holiday at the time of the inquest and thus unable to give evidence. But Mr. North was able to confirm that according to the ticket that was attached to the suitcase, it was in fact deposited between 11 am and midday on 30th November 1948. The ticket so attached was produced in the court however the stub normally retained by the depositor of an item was missing. It has never been located.
Another interesting issue is that the suitcase was not the only item remaining unclaimed from that day according to the coroner's comments but nothing is known of that item.
A number of items were located within the recovered suitcase that led Police to believe that the case belonged to the Somerton Man. The Barbours thread was one example, it was of the same type and colour found to have been used to carry pour repairs on the Somerton Man's jacket, a trouser pocket, and to sew a button on the man's trousers. It has to be said that Barbours waxed thread, which this thread was, would not normally be used for such repairs, it is waxed because it can be used on waterproof clothing, thornproof jackets for example. There's more but that's for another time.
Another interesting issue is that the suitcase was not the only item remaining unclaimed from that day according to the coroner's comments but nothing is known of that item.
A number of items were located within the recovered suitcase that led Police to believe that the case belonged to the Somerton Man. The Barbours thread was one example, it was of the same type and colour found to have been used to carry pour repairs on the Somerton Man's jacket, a trouser pocket, and to sew a button on the man's trousers. It has to be said that Barbours waxed thread, which this thread was, would not normally be used for such repairs, it is waxed because it can be used on waterproof clothing, thornproof jackets for example. There's more but that's for another time.
A REVIEW
So, here we have a suitcase that has an identifying tag but no matching stub. It contains items that can be matched to items of clothing found on the man, the trousers, the pocket and the button. We know approximately what time the suitcase was deposited. Or do we?
I would argue that we only know the time that 'A' suitcase was deposited not necessarily this particular suitcase.
Consider this in the light of my earlier comments. The suitcase and its contents togethether with the possessions found on the man were all 'litter', they were planted in order to deceive and to confuse anyone who attempted to follow them up.
The scenario I put to you here is that the case was not the case deposited between 11 am and midday on the 30th of November 1948. There is in fact no proof of that because the customer stub that would have confirmed that as fact was never found.
Think a little longer and deeper on this, a man leaves a suitcase at the station, it is filled with belongings from which he cannot be identified. If he had intended to end his own life as some have suggested, he would have ditched his clothing elsewhere, burnt them, spread them across a number of charity shops, etc etc. But why leave them where he knew they would inevitably be found? Especially given the removal of clothing tags, no wallet, no watch, and nothing that would identify the man. The suitcase was left as a red herring and it was filled with litter.
Consider this in the light of my earlier comments. The suitcase and its contents togethether with the possessions found on the man were all 'litter', they were planted in order to deceive and to confuse anyone who attempted to follow them up.
The scenario I put to you here is that the case was not the case deposited between 11 am and midday on the 30th of November 1948. There is in fact no proof of that because the customer stub that would have confirmed that as fact was never found.
Think a little longer and deeper on this, a man leaves a suitcase at the station, it is filled with belongings from which he cannot be identified. If he had intended to end his own life as some have suggested, he would have ditched his clothing elsewhere, burnt them, spread them across a number of charity shops, etc etc. But why leave them where he knew they would inevitably be found? Especially given the removal of clothing tags, no wallet, no watch, and nothing that would identify the man. The suitcase was left as a red herring and it was filled with litter.
But how did the trick work? How did whoever it was, manage to get a suitcase deposited knowing that it would be discovered and tracked in such a way that people would trace it to the Somerton Man? How could they have managed to link the thread and the seed found in the man's trousers and the suitcase, given the fact that the suitcase was found quite some time after the body?
I will share more on this in the next post
Ah, the suitcase, must have been 11 years ago when it wasn't discovered by a younger JS. He wasn't around then.
ReplyDeleteThe general consensus was that it was similar to a Globite (NSW) or imported vulcanised fibre suitcase. The key to the case, so to speak, is the layout of locks and handle, some centre locked, some left and right locks.
What if the luggage ticket for the suitcase were given or passed to someone else? What if there was something of importance in the suitcase and the swap method was to drop the suitcase at the railway station, hand over the ticket to someone to collect it or perhaps to swap it over for another, similar suitcase which contained nothing but litter? The suitcase is dropped off, the man is found on the beach, our third party turns up at the station apparently just to check on his suitcase so he doesn't claim it but maybe swaps the contents. There would be no record of that of course, maybe it was common practice in those days?
ReplyDeleteMore suitcase posts here:
https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/search?q=suitcase
A thought, according to gerry Feltus, the theory is that our man after depositing his suitcase asked for a washroom and was directed to the public baths were one could get a shower.
ReplyDeleteIn the suitcase, now deposited, was the man's shaving kit, toothbrush and toothpaste. No soap in the suitcase by the way just a container. We know he had no money to speak of and it would have cost him at least thrupence to get his clean up.
A good question isn't it. No shaving kit, no toothbrush or toothpaste and no money apart from that needed to get a bus trip if that's what he did.
Just where and when did he get cleaned up?