ALEC (ALEXANDER?) CRAIG
The image above is of a South Australian Railways Porter. Sourced from SA archives.
Recently, along with a fellow researcher, we looked at the issue of just who was Mr. R Craig?
Here are some notes that will hopefully clarify the matter and provide a probable answer.
"As it is, there is no record of Mr. Craig being spoken to or formally interviewed, neither, apparently, was the bust shown to him. This most significant and important witness did not make a statement and was not called to the inquest."
It's very important that you read this post right through...
CRAIGS LIST!
Here's a clip from the SAR employees listing, it shows the names of all employees of SAR during the relative period of time through until the 70s.
NOTES:
The highlighted names are those of people who could have been present at the station on 30th November 1948. There are three:
1. Alec (Alexander) Craig born 3rd August 1883, joined SAR February 23rd, 1945 and left, presumable retired, August 22nd, 1950. On leaving he would have been 67 years old, retirement age I believe in those days. Highlighted in Yellow.
2. Bruce Craig, Alternate FULL Name was Bruce LEIGH,, born July 14th, 1930, joined SAR March 17th. 1947 and left November 26th, 1970. On leaving he would have been 40 years old so not a retirement. Highlighted in plum.
3. Finally we have a Douglas Macdonald Craig, born April 22nd, 1923, joined SAR April 19th, 1939, and left on February 23rd, 1949. In 1949 he would have been 26 years old. Highlighted in plum.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SUGGESTION THAT
MR. NORTH WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN
TRUTHFUL IN HIS STATEMENT TO THE INQUEST COURT
THE QUESTION IS...
Basically, which one of these is most likely to have been the man referred to as R CRAIG?
Here's a clip from Mr. Norths statement at the Inquest:
Here's a clip from Mr. Norths statement at the Inquest:
Looks straightforward doesn't it? The name clearly shows R.Craig.
But, and it's a big 'BUT', you can also see where three spelling errors have occured in this short, typed document.:
Line 1 shows an error where the S in tickets has been Xd over, it should be ticket singular.
On line 4, the word THE following AT, first letter wrongly typed as an E and typed over with a T
Again line 4, in RAILWAY STATION, typed as one word with the letter S being typed as a B and changed to an S to correct it.
What does that tell us? Either someone was typing this statement as the words were being spoken OR, the statement had been handwritten in the first instance and the statement was being typed up from the handwritten version. My experience when taking statements in the late 60s was that we would handwrite the statement as the witness spoke the words, the witness signed, it sometimes with a certificate, and the statement would then be typed and later signed by the witness to accompany the documents for the court to read.
How easy would it be for the person typing Mr North's statement to type an R instead of an A or an R instead of a B?
Lets go back to our list:
Alec Craig aged 65 in November 1948, the A to R could be a simple misinterpretation from the handwritten words.
Bruce Craig aged 18 in November 1948, the letter B to an R, also a possible misinterpretation from the handwritten words
Douglas Craig aged 18 in November 1948, the letter D to an R wouldn't be a transposition BUT, it could be a simple typo because the letter D sits just below and to the left of the letter R on a QWERTY keyboard on a typewriter.
In reality it could be any one of the three but here's another 'BUT'. Mr. North in his statement said ' I KNOW THE MAN WHO ACTUALLY ISSUED THE TICKET'. Two of our short-listed people were 18 and 26 years old respectively at the time, I think it very probable that had it been one of those two, Mr. North would have said, 'I KNOW THE YOUNG MAN WHO ACTUALLY ISSUED THE TICKET'.
My selection then is ALEC CRAIG as the man who actually did issue that ticket on 30th November 1948.
My selection then is ALEC CRAIG as the man who actually did issue that ticket on 30th November 1948.
HOW DOES THIS HELP THE INVESTIGATION?
Whichever Mr. Craig issued the ticket, make no mistake, he quite probably had extremely valuable information that would have helped identify the Somerton Man. He spoke with him, he wrote the details on the ticket, he would know whether there was another ticket issued for another item, to the same man, whether he had an accent, did he have a limp when he walked? etc. etc.... He would quite possibly have been able to look at the bust and say Yes or No.
As it is, there is no record of Mr. Craig being spoken to or formally interviewed, neither was the bust shown to him. This most significant and important witness did not make a statement and was not called to the inquest.
It is just possible that one of the descendants, friends or relatives of this witness was given information by him.
In this post I make specific reference to the issue of a 'ledger' also known as a 'register'. It seems a certain known troll, Milongal, has difficulty in understanding why such a document would exist and why it should have been in evidence to the Somerton Man inquest in 1949.
ReplyDeleteIn the evidence given by Mr. north he mentions a name, R.Craig, I followed that up with state archives and found that according to records of employees kept by SA Rail, there was no R Craig listed as an employee at the time the suitcase was deposited on 30th November 1948. My contention is that it was a typo and that the likelihood was that it was A Craig, Alec Craig to be precise. So, why would there have to have been a register? The answer is quite simple, The lost luggage ticket that was attached to the suitcase has no name written on it, which means that the details of who took the case in were written elsewhere, where else but in a register or ledger of some kind. It also means that that same document would have contained details of the luggage tag and in my view, the time and the physical location it was placed in. In order to prove to the court that it was Mr Craig that took it in, the only document that could be used for that purpose, would be that same register/ledger.
Regarding the use of a ledger in the Left Luggage area of the Adelaide Railway station, I have had a discussion with an expert in the field of SA Railway history and he is of the opinion that it must have been the case (no pun intended) if they were able to find the name of a porter who handled a specific item of luggage. Will keep digging until we find an example of such a ledger, we now have it confirmed that there must have been one.
ReplyDeleteNow this is extremely interesting. It seems that South Australian Railways, had both Found and Left luggage were recorded in the one ledger. I am hoping to get some scans from such a register and will share them when they arrive.
ReplyDelete