"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always
be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
...Churchill...
When you review all of the information regarding what has become known as the Freeman Rubaiyat', there are more than a few inconsistencies to be found.To begin at the beginning, here's a transcription of the article from the News about the book that was published before the book was found:
This article was published on 21st July 1949
Here's the link for the article: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/130264202/11111689#
Although police realise they are acting on a mlIlion to one chance, a search for a book with a torn page which may throw some light on the Somerton body mystery is continuing throughout Australia.
A torn page of Fitzgerald's translation of the "Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" was found in the pocket of the victim.
Det.-Sgt. Leane and Det. Brown believe the torn book may still be on the shelves of a library They think that if
they can find it, they can trace the man to the city or town he was in before he came to Adelaide With this information, it may be possible to establish his identity Melbourne police nave made a 'search of public libraries and libraries in Victorian provincial towns, but have failed to find the torn' volume Although a number ot city and suburtan libraries have been checked here, others in country districts have not vet been investigated. The cause of death will probably never be known. A plaster cast of the victim's head and shoulders, which was exhibited at the inquest, is now in a store room at Adelaide Museum. No request for it to be displayed has yet been made by the authorities.
This article was posted on 23rd July 1949Here's the image below from the Press article showing the torn page and here's the link:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/130266390 searchTerm=Book%20Found%20Body%20Clue#
Here's the text of the article in the News dated 23rd July 1949:
TODAY'S PICTURE of the book "Omar Khayyam" (top) found last November in the back seat of a car which had been left parked in Jetty road, Glenelg. The last line in the book has been torn out. BELOW—The fragment of paper found in the clothing of the Somerton victim which may have been torn from the book.
A copy of the "Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" with a torn page which has been sought by police throughout Australia in the hope that it might pro-vide the missing clue to the identity of the mystery Somerton body, has been found in Adelaide.
Last night an Adelaide businessman read of the search in "The News" and recalled that in November he had found a copy of the book which had been thrown on the back seat of his car while it was parked in Jetty road, Glenelg. The book, the last page of which is torn, has been handed to police. If scientific tests, to be con-ducted next week, show the scrap of paper found on the dead man's clothing had been taken from the book, police will have brought off a million-to-one chance. On December 1, when the body of the mystery man was
found on Somerton beach, police discovered that the name tags had been cut from the clothing and all he had in his pockets was a train ticket, a bus ticket, and a neatly trimmed piece of paper with the printed words "Taman Shud." Investigators found that these words had been used by Omar Khayyam at the end of his verses and meant "the end" or "the finish." A study of the printing indi-cated that the words might have been torn from a copy of Fitzgerald's translation of Omar Khayyam. In the belief that if the book could be found it might show the movements of the man be-fore his death, police through-out Australia have been looking for it. The finder of the book today handed it to Det.-Sgt. R. L. Leane. On the last page the words "Taman Shud" had been torn out. On the back of the book are several telephone numbers and a series of capital letters, writ-ten in pencil, the meaning of which have not yet been deciphered. As the scrap of paper found on the dead man had been trimmed, police were unable to identify the book merely by fitting it into the torn page. Proof will now rest with tests on the paper and the print.
NOTE: It is thought that the image showing the torn-out page was arranged and taken by a photographer from the News. This raises the question was it really the book handed in to the Police?
This article was published on the 26th July 1949
Here's the Trove Link for the third article in the set:
: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/130270026#
Here's the text from the article:
Body Mystery Deepens Phone Number Found on the cover of Book
The Somerton body mystery deepened today with the discovery of an Adelaide woman's telephone number on the cover of a book linked with the case.
'A fragment found in the victim's clothing is believed to have come from the book "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam." Police have discovered also that the woman gave a similar copy of the book to an Army lieutenant in Sydney about three and a half years ago, and that the lieutenant later tried to contact her in Melbourne when she wrote back saying she was now married. Police have also discovered that the Somerton body was found within a quarter of a mile of the woman's home. Today, police in Melbourne and Sydney are checking on missing people to see if the Army lieutenant is among them. Det.-Sgt. R. L. Leane yesterday obtained the opinion of authority that the piece of paper bearing the words "Tamam Shud" was of the same texture and color as that of the book handed to police on Saturday The book had been thrown into the back seat of a motor car in Jetty road, Glenelg, shortly before the victim's body was found on the beach at Somerton on December 1. Woman's Story All efforts yesterday to obtain a similar copy of the book from city bookshops failed. If police could obtain a similar copy, they would be able to check on the print used in the words "Tamam Shud." The woman whose telephone number appears in pencil on the cover of the book told police that when she was nursing at North Shore Hospital in Sydney about three and a half years ago, she gave a similar copy to a lieutenant who served in the Water Transport section of the Army. Later, she said, the lieutenant wrote to her mother's home in Melbourne. She replied to his letter, telling him she was married. Subsequently, the woman told police, she and her husband settled in Adelaide. Last year a man called at the house of a neighbor, inquiring for a nurse he once knew.
This afternoon the woman is being shown the plaster cast of the Somerton victim, which is now in a storeroom at Adelaide Museum. Acting on the possibility that the "Rubaiyat" in their possession did belong to the lieutenant, police set out to decipher a number of block letters penciled on the back of the book. Although the lettering was faint, police managed to read it by using ultraviolet light. In the belief that the letter-ing might be a code, a copy has been sent to decoding experts at Army Headquarters, Mel-bourne.
POLICE are looking for anyone who has an exact copy of the book "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam." It was published in New Zealand by Whitcombe and Toombs.
Here's the first questionable item. If as the article says they were looking for the book and published a cover it suggests the book had not been recovered, how did they know that it had been published by Whitcomb and Toombs? It could of course be a misstep in publishing. dates
On the face of it the torn slip of paper resulted in the identification of the book as being published by Whitcomb and Toombs. But was it? The next post has a few surprises.
JS, re searching the CM blog for comments. You may already know this but if not, this is how to search blog comments.
ReplyDelete1. If you know the post that your target comment, just select that post from the CM list of posts.
2. When that post opens select Control 'F' on your keyboard.
3.That opens the 'Find' box for you at the top of the page.
4. Enter a key word that you're looking for or perhaps your name or someone else's. The box will display the number of instances of your keyword or names in that particular post's list of comments.
5. The 'find' box also shows an Up arrow and a Down arrow.
6. Selecting the Down arrow scrolls through every listed instance/comment (which will be highlighted) of your key word or name. ( Selecting the Up arrow takes you back up the list.)
7. Another good way is to use Adobe Acrobat and capture the whole website in the PDF which is fully searchable.
If you already knew it that's good and if not then I hope its of use to you.
I am not an avid follower of this case but am interested. I don’t understand why someone who had the means i.e. scissors to neatly trim the piece with tamam shud written on it would not use those scissors to cut rather than tear it from the book. While the unknown man did have scissors in his case, he did not have any on his person when found which suggests the trimming was done while stationary with the suitcase while the tearing was done while in motion - which is the opposite of what one might expect.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts. This is what I believe to be true about the torn slip. I agree that scissors weren't to hand so the slip was torn out by hand. The image that you see in the press article, is not of the actual book, that image was created by the photographer/journalist. That means that the rough tear shown is incorrect. I base this on a discussion with Gerry Feltus some years ago who had spoken with Detective Superintendent Brown and the latter was certain that the torn slip was a precise fit for the space left in the book by its removal. It's true to say that this third hand information but it comes from the most credible of sources.
ReplyDeleteIf you accept this to be correct, then a question might be how could the slip have been removed in such a way? I tested that to see if it could be done, I think it was in 2010 or 2011. I used an A5 piece of paper folded it in half and then pinched a small corner of the paper which allowed me to tear out a shape not that dissimilar to the shape of the torn slip. Some years later, Professor Abbott tested it in the same way and found it was possible to remove the slip just leaving a hole within the page.
Just when the man tore the slip out, I don't know. I would think he would have to have been stationery when he removed it. One telling piece of information is that it was rolled up lengthwise before being pushed well down into the concealed waistband fob pocket, a secret pocket is how I describe it, close to the seam that would have been done so that a cursory 'pat down' would not have detected the presence of the now 'slim' rolled up torn piece. It would have been different had he rolled the slip up short end to short end. I got that information from a very credible source and I have no reason to doubt it.
Thanks for your comment, I hope this information helps
Sanders says the book issue was done years ago?
ReplyDeleteOk, let's look at what he actually said:
ReplyDelete'GC: Len Brown’s trip down town and subsequent mention of the Whitcombe & Tombs v Oxford Ruby is truly ancient, been repeated ad infinitum on all SM blogs even the fourth ranker. Time to ease up on the Cassius Clay “Ah ame tha greatest” shit; it’s only self serving and leads knowhere Mr. Cramer.'
As is John's habit you will notice that he made no mention of the Collins version of the book. The reality is that Detective Brown had already tested out the torn slip against the Collins book as per his statement.
This is the first blog to my knowledge that has posted precise information that disproves the claim that the torn slip came from the Collins version of the book
There has been no mention of the Collins version and the torn slip anywhere else. The challenge for John might be related to Nick Pellings lengthy and, grammatically speaking, well constructed post on the Whitcomb and Tombs Rubaiyat here:
https://ciphermysteries.com/2016/06/21/the-search-for-the-somerton-mans-rubaiyat
No mention whatsoever in that post or any other that I could find on their site of the Collins version of the Rubaiyat and the fact that it had precisely the same words, same font and same size as the torn slip. I fear John is mistaken.
Just a thought John and in fairness to you, perhaps you could point me to the website and its post/comments regarding the Collins version of the Robaiyat and the torn slip match in words, font and size with images?
ReplyDeleteJohn, it seems that you weren't able to point to any example of someone writing on this same topic as per an earlier fact check exercise, all you do is to add another layer of dubious information. In this case, here's what you wrote:
ReplyDelete'GC: Suggest you go over again what Len Brown describes in his comparison of the W & T and the Collins version of the ROK that differs markedly, puting all doubts to rest about any possibilty that the ‘Freeman’ Taman [sic] Shud slip having come from the latter. You might then see what most half smart researchers were able to pick up on, that you appatently overlooked. Not like you!
Nowhere in Detective Brown's statement does he mention Whitcomb and Tombs, he speaks only of the Collins version and the type of paper which appeared to be the same as the torn slip. the content of this and related posts hase] been shown to be correct
Far from contributing to this case, you continually search for ways to block it, an effort in which you have been and always will be unsuccessful.
I have a number of important things to attend to between now and the book so i won't be spending anymore time on rectifying your errors and misleading statements. I am sure people see them for what they are.
Just wondering, were there any more chemists along Jetty road in 1948?
ReplyDeleteGood question. the answer's Yes. in fact there were three in close proximity including Mr.Freeman's premises at 24a or was it 24?
ReplyDeleteHow come the Police published the Whitcomb and Tombs book cover and the page with the piece torn out? Doesn't make any sense.
ReplyDeleteA good question, I think we are in a position where I can prove that the W&T book was not the book with the code on it, and you are right the copy of the W&T book cover and torn out area was published but by the press and not by the Police. What I mean is that there is no record that I can find where the Police mentioned the book was a W&T copy. I agree that it doesn't seem logical but that is what occurred. I suspect that there will have been a valid reason for it but we may never know what that reason was. We could guess but a guess isn't evidence. In the meantime, I am trying my best to get a book finished and I have now just committed to get a post done about the code page dilemma! Isn't life grand :)
ReplyDeleteCould be they wanted someone to think that they had the wrong book?
ReplyDeleteThat's as good a guess as any but is it what happened? Must sign off for a while.
ReplyDeleteTime for an update. Once again, this blog has been able to uncover new evidence in the Somerton Man case as discussed in the current series of posts. The implications of the discoveries related to the Collins Version of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam are far reaching and more will be published in due course. Thanks to everyone for their support, the blog statistics are climbing more rapidly with in excess of 4000 visits over the weekend. It's good to know that people have retained their interest and as more new and interesting discoveries are made, I am sure that growth will continue. There will be another post in the next few days. Thanks Again!
ReplyDeleteTo the Anonymous commenter, If you read from line 1, you will see that the content of this post is almost entirely made up of newspaper articles.
ReplyDeleteHere's line 1 for you:
"When you review all of the information regarding what has become known as the Freeman Rubaiyat', there are more than a few inconsistencies to be found,"
There then follows a series of transcripts of 3 press articles and each one is headed with the date and a link to the actual article concerned.
Here's an example:
This article was posted on 23rd July 1949
Here's the image below from the Press article showing the torn page and here's the link:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/130266390 searchTerm=Book%20Found%20Body%20Clue#
I couldn't make it clearer than that. if you have a question to ask, go ahead and if it fits with the post and adds value to the discussion, not just a worthless gripe, I will probably post it with a response. Please don't waste your time or mine.
Hi Alan, That's interesting, can I ask you to let me have the dimensions of the full page and the front and rear cover please? Also if possible, the Title page including Publisher which might have a date on it?
ReplyDeleteBack again Alan, here's the link to the full Wells copy of the W&T Rubaiyat which has a ruler in place:
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4FgVwct8qNUXzlIMVJYUlNkZmM/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-r63w0UvWQySdLeqT5AQBtg
Let me know if the link works for you.
Alan, Spent a bit of time on it, a few points.
ReplyDelete1. The grey background image at it's bottom left as you view it seems to be chipped? It sort of suggests that it was pasted on but you you would know better as you have it in your possession.
2. The tamam shud font is an exact match, the quatrain is a different font completely.
3. The alignment of the Tamam Shud phrase with the wording of the quatrain is very different to the other W&T page and of course the Collins version
4. Hard to judge properly because I don't know the dimensions but I have an idea on the perspective ratio which again is quite different to the W&T and Collins book, the dimensions would help with that issue.
5. I can see the backlit printing as you pointed out.
6. The biggest difference is the colour of the inner page. Your page is mid grey and the tamam shud phrase is printed on that grey background in your copy, the W&T version has a cream colour background and the Collins version is closer to a white background which would have discoloured over the years.. The torn slip as displayed in the post above, is white.
It's a fact that there were quite severe paper shortages that would have effected the various printing outfits and all kinds of paper would have been used and reprocessed in those times.
Another fact to bear in mind is the existence of backyard printers who made up their own versions and false imprints often copying well known brands.
Looking at the evidence that exists, the paper colour is the standout difference, mid grey Vs white. It is possible that the version you sent was produced in white but there's no evidence to support that. If such evidence turned up and everything else like dimensions, fonts, paper type etc matched to the TS slip then that's a different matter altogether. As stated, I can't comment on the dimensions and would be happy to do that if you forward them.