...THE LETTER TO THE CORONER...
The above document was among the files photographed last week. It is a letter from Dr. Bennett, the man who first examined the body of the Somerton Man at the hospital and pronounced life extinct.
I had heard that this letter existed but I do not recall ever having seen it.
It is in a way the first result from the photographed files. It is not to be found in any of the other formal inquest documents. You will note that Dr. Bennett had further researched the possible cause of death and quoted the work by Professor Sydney Smith which gave some pertinent information that one would have thought should have been included in the Inquest documentation. Instead, Bennett was restricted to providing only the fact that he had pronounced life extinct.
The image above has been sharpened and reoriented, the original is below. On it you can see that the document was sent on May 21st, 1949, well ahead of the inquest date:
As you can see, the original image of the letter was blurred but the Vance toolset did a first-rate job of cleaning it up.
POISONS, THEIR ISOLATION & IDENTIFICATION..
By FRANK BAMFORD BSc
PUBLISHED 1940...
I have been able to locate this book and immediately noticed that the publication date was not 1947 as it appears to be stated in Dr.Bennett's letter. It was 1940, a time when poisons and Truth Serums were in common use.
It begs the question of why such a text that had been in circulation for 8 years and on a subject of interest to those engaged in forensic analysis, was apparently overlooked even when its title and subject were advised in Dr.Bennett's letter? I have no answer for that.
The entire book is in the PDF above or you can download it from the link. There are some 377 pages so there's a fair bit to absorb. Byron Deveson might care to take a look?
Here's the download link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iqcVn-hXYODeNsNdZ12ECHDbxSi2d23b/view?usp=sharing
https://www.geni.com/people/Dr-John-Bennett/6000000066986262101
ReplyDeleteThe fact that John Bennett was closely related to Carl Webb might suggest that we should ponder the question "how could he look at the body in the ambulance and not identify his own cousin?, unless it wasn't the body of Carl Webb that was brought in from Somerton Beach"
Agreed, I would call this a trigger event, this one observation leads you to now consider not just the Dr.Bennett issue which in itself is thought provoking, but of all aspects and right now there's a particular focus on the Inquest Documents.
ReplyDeleteAs you quite rightly point out, the issue is who was the Somerton Man? There is no definitive evidence or proof that Carl Webb is he. Webb may well be the man of whom the bust was made but it's a major call to link him directly to the Somerton Man especially given the differences and the various statements in evidence of Paul Lawson. In his evidence, the body was never identified to Paul as that of the Somerton Man.
There are a few interesting aspects to the letter. The first paragraph is quite revealing, Dr Bennett quotes a book, 'Poisons their Isolation and Identification'
ReplyDeleteBy Frank Bamford. This book was published in 1940 and was a well know Text on the subject. Is this why his letter was not included in the inquest documents and he was never called as a witness?
Gordon, is it possible that the note attributed to Dr.Bennett was from someone else?
ReplyDeleteI think its quite possible that the note was sent by someone other than Dr. Bennett. Looking at the note, its addressed to the Coroner and it doesn't make clear who initiated the discussion.
ReplyDeleteIt also looks like the page itself may have been from a teleprinter. Private wire teleprinters were in use in Australia from 1933.
Here's a link showing examples of older machines, it refers to the 1960s in the clip but some of the machines were older than that.
https://youtu.be/GisScddPJCk
What's the C3 in a circle above the date mean?
ReplyDeleteHate to be picky but shouldn't that date on the note be 1949 not 48? Heck of a find though. The coroner would have known of the untraceable poisons but no mention in his remarks.
ReplyDeleteAnon. I honestly don't know what the C3 mark is, possibly an archive reference. Will check it out.
ReplyDeleteDoctorJ. Yes, saw your comment in the inbox and fixed it straight away. Thanks!
Did a search on the Poisons book. There were later editions, 47 and 52. Could be that Dr Bennett was referring to the 47 edition. But I take the point that the book had been out there as a standard text from 1940. A book that should have been on most analysts bookshelves.
ReplyDeleteGordon, a skilled instrument maker wouldn’t have much trouble finding a job at Salisbury in ‘47 ‘48 would he?
ReplyDeleteI think that would be correct but I wouldn't confine the search to Salisbury. There was a myriad of small tool companies/contractors throughout Adelaide and surrounding suburbs. Maybe even out as far as Port Pirie and Port Augusta. Perhaps a search of Employment Ads on Trove for the relative period would turn up some examples?
DeleteThe “C3” mark could mean “copy (number) three” or the C could be a reference to “Coroner” or “Case”. Or none of those things…!
ReplyDeletePlease read the full comment below regarding C3, it turns out to be more significant than I thought.
DeleteWhat leads you to attribute to the letter to Dr Bennett? Is there a second page with a signature or something else that ties the letter to Bennett?
ReplyDeleteA good question, thank you.
DeleteThe existence of a letter from Dr.Bennett was discussed some 10 or more years ago as I indicated in the post, it was either on the original Adelaide University FB page or perhaps the Inner Sanctum group. But I had not seen the actual note. So when this one turned up I put 2 and 2 together and I have made an assumption that this was the note. FYI the discussion included the mention of various drugs that could have been used and Dr.Bennetts' name was mentioned.
C3 AND WHAT IT INDICATED:
ReplyDeleteIf you read Constable Durham's ( The Police Photographer) statement in the inquest documents. You will see that he mentions C5, C6, C7 and C8 I believe. They are exhibit numbers.
The circled C3 written at the head of what is believed to be the note from Dr Bennett was an exhibit number and yet it doesn't turn up anywhere in the Inquest file proper. The question is why would you bring an item into evidence and give it an exhibit number and then not include it in the proceedings?
It is a question only, there could be an entirely innocent reason for this but there is nothing that I can find as yet that makes any reference to it. Will review the inquest documents again.
I will also look in Gerry Feltus's book The Unknown Man to see if there's any mention there and post further. As it stands the discovery is interesting but best not to get carried away into the realms of conspiracies and unfounded hypotheses, that's best left to the academics of this world.
I did a search of the book contents and Digitalis is not mentioned as a potential poison?
ReplyDeleteRe Digitalis, it's worth researching Digitalis, quite a few records to view. Not the least of which was that of Harry Dexter White who died suddenly of an overdose of the drug in August 1948, a couple of weeks after Pavel Fedosimov, minus his wife, boarded the POBEDA headed for Odesa. Long story there but interestingly the last photograph of Pavel Fedosimov was taken in New York in 1947. It is known that he was under suspicion of being about to betray the mother country. Harry Dexter White was known to Fedosimov to all accounts and it was Harry along with Alger Hiss acting with Whittaker Chambers, a Soviet spy, wrote/typed documents that were found hidden inside a pumpkin believe it or not.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2020/10/28/pumpkins_spies_traitors_and_presidents_582172.html
Hmm. Questionable documents, exhibits precluded from the inquest, ears that don't match using high quality photo matching software. Where is this taking us?
ReplyDeleteToo soon to say where this takes us. More information is needed and patience is the key. There is more to be done on the photos from Mike Wohltmann. There may be more yet to be more yet to be revealed or not. As things stand, the Bennett letter tells us a great deal about the inquest but we need to substantiate what has been found.
ReplyDeleteDigitalis is a difficult one to be categorical with. On the one hand, the autopsy said his heart was in good condition. On the other hand, digitalis is occasionally known to have been used as a posion as an avenue for suicide. See a summary here - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82526436.pdf .
ReplyDeleteAlso, Netfix recently screened "The Good Nurse" - it was based on the true story of Charles Cullen in the US, who killed at least 26 or so patients and maybe up to 400 altogether. His MO was to inject patients with insulin and digoxin. Digoxin is the pharacological name for digitalis.
Could they have used Scopolamine and gave him too much?
ReplyDeleteI guess they could but I don't whether Scopolamine was detectable. It's known that Pentothal was hard to detect, it only being found apparently in the brain and nowhere else. The Somerton Man's brain according to Cowan was quite bloody.
ReplyDelete