UPDATED JULY5th & July 7th 2023
SOMERTON MAN
FOREHEAD IMAGES:
In the photo above, you can see the 'dividing line' between the superimposed image and the original image as indicated by the arrows. There is also a distinct change in the 'textured' appearance of the upper forehead between the arrowed line and the hairline. There is also what appears to be a shadow that drops down from the right-hand arrow and a point adjacent to the left ear.
An observation would be this, if that's a shadow to the right as indicated how could that be because the light is coming from the right?
What you are seeing is evidence that the photograph of the face has been superimposed onto the head of this man.
There was a newspaper article that quoted someone who had viewed the body and they said that the body didn't look like the photograph in the paper.
I find that very interesting, not only is the photograph called into question but it would also be reasonable to ask just which body was shown to the public?
Another question would be, did Tibor Kaldor visit the morgue to view the body? And if he did and didn't recognise him as he had thought he would, is that why Tibor had to die?
Trove article published on December 4th, 1948
You will read a mention of the photographic reconstruction of the body is mentioned at the foot of the article:
Below is another news article that mentions the fact that the photograph of the man found on Somerton Beach was reconstructed. I believe there a number of news articles that week regarding the reconstruction of the photograph.
Could be morticians wax or make up done for the photograph
ReplyDeleteIf that were wax or make-up you would think it would be applied to the whole face but its not. There's a big gap across the forehead and along the right cheek.There's no mention of anyone else but the photographer, Jimmy Durham' taking the photographs, it's in his statement and he does not say anything about make up etc. It's a good thought though. Whether it was discussed by the Coroner is unknown, the court reporters notes are missing.
ReplyDeleteMounted Constable Knight identified the body at the morgue as being the man he saw dead on the beach. If somebody had superimposed another face then surely Knight would have noticed the difference as I’m certain Durham’s photographs of SM would have been posted in the Police Station.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteThe devil, as they say, is in the detail. In much the same way that Mr. Lawson's comments that has been detailed and highlighted in a copy of his diary entry on this blog in 2014, referred to the 'disposal of the original body'. That diary entry relates to a call received from a Constable DINHAM. (There was a Constable J.O. Dinham in SAPOL at the time. There are no other documents related to Constable Dinham):
Mr. Lawson's Diary Entry:
https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2014/09/somerton-man-was-there-another-body.html
The details in this instance are a little different in that they are supported by some documentary evidence. as you will read.
1. Constable Knight did not give a statement to the inquest, the information regarding Constable Knight and his identification of the body was provided by Constable Durham and as such 'strictly speaking' it was hearsay evidence and should be questioned.
2. The documented evidence comes from a Police issued statement to the press that was made on the 1st December which clearly states that 'reconstructed photographs' would be made available to the press the following Friday 3rd December. What precisely did 'reconstructed photographs' mean?
3. There is one more relevant piece of evidence and that relates to the evidence provided by a Mr. Rodger Todd who recalled seeing the body of the man on Somerton Beach during an early morning walk with his dog. You can find that story here:
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/bombshell-claim-on-somerton-man-mystery-i-saw-his-dead-body/news-story/a78b959a0f922adc0d993d351a516c8d
In it you will read that when he later watched the subsequent events from the window of his home, he saw two Police cars and two ambulances.
There is no mention of two Ambulances or two Police cars in any of the available Police documentation.
In the inquest documents themselves, you will see that there were 4 photographs of a man presented to the Coroner. items C5, C6, C7 and C8. Only two photographs have been released to the public.
Hopefully one day, the original stenographers account of proceedings of the inquest will be made public. They will reveal who asked what questions and the responses to same.
After some 12 years researching this case, my view is that we should focus precisely on what the evidence says. I have consistently endeavoured to do just that on this blog.
On another subject .. why, in your opinion, didn’t the detectives take the Freeman Rubaiyat with them when they accompanied Jessica to the museum to view the bust? There is no record of her ever being shown the book and confirm it was the one she gave Boxall … and at that stage of the investigation Boxall was thought likely to be the dead man.
ReplyDeleteAn Opinion! Goodness this must be serious....
ReplyDeletePART 1.
There are three choices open to us all when assessing an issue of this nature. We can give a VIEW, we can give an OPINION or we can make a JUDGEMENT:
1. A view can quite simply be described as 'I have read this information, I have seen these images and thus this is my view. Questions may be included but assumptions and/or conclusions are not. It is just a statement of the available information as I see it..
2. An Opinion. The opinion goes significantly further than the view and can generally be described as, 'I have read the information, I have seen the images and, based on my knowledge and experience in this field, I am inclined to make the assumption or arrive at the conclusion, that the case is as follows... The opinion may include unanswered questions and assumptions and can be subject to change in the light of further information.
3. The Judgement is yet another level. It goes something like this, 'I have read the information and seen the images and I have reached this conclusion and it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the case. There are no unanswered questions or further information that could sway me from this finding. The judgement is set in concrete.
Thus, in place of an opinion, I will give you my view as follows:
When Jessica was interviewed in her home at 90A Moseley Street and was asked about a Rubaiyat she, apparently, quickly volunteered the information regarding the gift that she had made of such a book to Lieutenant Alf Boxall at the Clifton Gardens Hotel some years previously. (The clock started ticking when Jestyn received the call to organise the visit of Detective Canney) The fact that the response was immediate is interesting. What happened in the time that elapsed between that call and the arrival of a Detective Canney? Was she taken immediately to be shown the bust? Or was it the next day? Was there time for her to perhaps call Alf Boxall and alert him to the Police interest in the case. Detective Canney presumably arrived at the Mosely Street address in a Police Car. My understanding is that the CIB at that time had two way radio in their vehicles, did Canney radio in the details about Alf Boxall? If so, how quickly could an enquiry have been made of Army Records and ascertain who and where was Lieutenant Alf Boxall? When did the Police first learn that Alf Boxall was alive? Did they travel to Sydney to simply confirm the fact? Did Jestyn know that she was going to be shown the bust? Could her reaction have been planned?
Thanks for this GC, I couldn't make head nor tail out of the TT blog. He just goes round in circles. I liked the way you showed what questions to ask. It's easy to work out the approximate date when Canney visited the nurse and there was certainly plenty of time for her to make a call or maybe more than 1 to set up how she should respond. I know it's just a theory but at least it's based on the facts.
DeleteThanks and your comments are appreciated. In the end what I try to do here is to show people how to think around this subject and not what to think.
DeleteDon't be too hard on the other blog, he's doing far better than the turmoil that you see on the UK based blog. It's the pigeon on the chessboard syndrome that puts many people off. Anyway, I wish him all the best.
PART 2.
ReplyDeleteTo the question of the 'Freeman Rubaiyat'. At the time of the interview, what would be the reasons for the Police to show the Freeman Rubaiyat to Jestyn? Was the Rubaiyat in the possession of the Police at that time or had it been sent to Melbourne or given to 'Naval Intelligence' for their take on the code page?
Two more related issues:
1. The proximity of the front door of the Shannon flats can be seen in this Google Earth image:
https://www.allhomes.com.au/90a-moseley-street-glenelg-south-sa-5045
As you will see it would not have been possible for a neighbour from the flats to see anyone at the door of 90A Mosely Street. The neighbour who saw and spoke to the man may have been from either number 90 Moseley street or perhaps 92 Moseley Street.
2. This Real Estate advert contains images of the inside of 90A Moseley Street. Amongst them is a view of the kitchen, through the window of which is a plain red brick wall.
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/90a-moseley-st-glenelg-south-sa-5045
And finally, some points regarding the Tamam Shud slip. It existed and still does exist. It was loaned to Professor Abbot by Gerry Feltus. Professor Abbot had the slip put under the microscope in an effort to better identify the type of paper on which it was printed.
In his statement at the inquest Detective Brown records that spent time investigating the slip and the paper. Detective Brown also stated that he had seen the Nurses telephone on the back of the book and it had been in 'very tiny lettering' and that it was 'under the code'. link here:
https://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/wiki/index.php/Leonard_Douglas_Brown
My understanding is that the words 'Tamam Shud' were used at the end of other publications besides the Rubaiyat.
I hope the foregoing will be of some use for you. I am not in a position to add anything further.
Is it possible that the book was passed to Keswick Barracks? They had an intelligence and a signals unit there as well as some Dunera Boys I think.
ReplyDeleteOn the Shannon flats issue etc. Are there any plans of the building/ maisonettes at 90 Moseley Street?
ReplyDeleteYes I would think there would be building plans for the maisonettes in the Glenelg Council archives. Chase it up and let me know how you go. Leave your email address on the Contact page please. I have some other information I can send to you.
ReplyDeleteOn another blog they say that the 'superimposed' face is an invention. Could it have been done in the 1940s
ReplyDeleteThose days were very much pre-photoshop, that product wasn't even on the horizon then. So, they did what they could with what they had, they called it 'photo reconstruction', superimposition is another term that was used. I have added the article to the post above that quotes the SA Police using a reconstructed image of the man found on the beach. Not sure where you got your information from but at least now you have the truth of the matter and thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to the original article on the subject posted here in 2013, ten years flies past :)
https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2013/09/somerton-manconfirmation-that-his.html
Added another press notice in pdf format on 7th July 2023 regarding the 'reconstructed photograph' done by Constable Durham. The face that we see in the SM post autopsy was reconstructed, in those days there was no photoshop to do the job so they superimposed the face onto the original photograph. That's the evidence right there. The problem we have though is just what did the original face look like?
ReplyDelete