SOMERTON MAN MYSTERY: SA RAILWAYS FOUND & LEFT LUGGAGE DOCUMENTS FOUND

Some weeks ago I published an image of some entries that had been in an old SA Railways Lost Property Register. It was very kindly forwarded to me by the SA Rail Museum in Adelaide. It was very useful in that it showed the meticulous details of the Lost and Found property that was recorded.

In the past week, the museum has forwarded some further documentation in a PDF format, it's titled 'Weekly Notices' .There are only 4 pages in the document but its implications are quite stunning as you will read.

Here's the PDF:

You will notice that in these notes reference is made to Luggage and items from outer stations, i.e. other than Adelaide Railway Station. You will also note that the Notice refers to 'UNCLAIMED LUGGAGE', and the need to notify the owner of the luggage provided that a label was attached.

The Notices were dated 1911 and referred to the rules and regulations at that time. Would they have used similar rules in the 1940s?  

What is obvious is that they were very careful when it came to handling the property of their passengers.

DATE & TIME STAMP MACHINE EXAMPLE

 

We know that the ticket was dated 30th November 1948 but no time stamp is visible. That's not to say it wasn't there.  Given the detailed nature of the instructions in the notice above and the focus on contacting the owners of the property, it is reasonable to assume that when the suitcase was deposited at the Adelaide Railway Station on that day, the transaction would have been recorded in a register. Yes, the luggage ticket would provide a degree of information but if someone were to produce the matching stub to that ticket, was that really enough identification to prove ownership of that suitcase?

I think that a Left Luggage Register would have been kept which included name and address details.

THE LOST PROPERTY REGISTER DETAILS:

The implications are that the Police could have had the name and address of the owner of the suitcase and that as part of normal procedures, they withheld that information. It was and no doubt still is, common practice to withhold information that might help to prove or disprove any details that came to light later.