One thing that we can say for certain is that the date of the release of the Somerton Man inquest findings is getting closer.
There are, however, two matters that have become known in relatively recent times, as follows:
1. Relating to the copy of the Boxal Rubaiyat, that's the copy of the actual book containing the handwritten inscription of Verse 70, which was presented to Alf Boxall by the Nurse 'Jestyn'. This book was given to Professor Abbot, who had it in his possession for safekeeping.. The Professor went to the trouble of making a video of the book and some of its pages. The existence of this book became known only after the 1949 Inquest, and, given the finding of the nurse's telephone number on the back of a page of yet another copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, would tend to make it of interest to the current inquest. It is on the Inscription Page and also the Title page of said book that code concealments were found and recovered. I am grateful to the Professor for sending me two high-resolution images of the two pages from the book, which have enabled me to recover the code in numerous locations of the images.
These high-resolution images are a Godsend, because sadly the Professor has mislaid the original Boxall book itself, and thus it cannot be presented to the current inquest nor to SAPOL forensic team members.
Here's a link to the Post that covers some of the issues related to the Boxall Rubaiyat:
https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2024/12/the-somerton-man-rubaiyat-its-not-what.html
2. The second matter relates to the torn slip of paper bearing the words Tamam Shud. You may recall that this slip was identified by Detective Brown as coming from a Collins version of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, and it was said to have come from the copy of the Rubaiyat found in a car owned by a Glenelg Chemist. It was on a page of this same book that the so-called Somerton Man Code was found along with the nurse's telephone number. That particular version of the Rubaiyat had Fitzgerald's First and Second Translations included within its covers. In turn, being that particular version meant that the reverse side of the torn slip bore letters from an earlier verse, Verse 74 in fact,.. The link to the post that discusses the Collins version:
https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2024/12/the-somerton-man-rubaiyat-its-not-what.html
This same torn slip was subjected to microscopic examination by Adelaide University around 2011. Once again, I was fortunate in being able to acquire a set of high-resolution images of the torn slip that had been taken during the Microscopic examination. For unknown reasons, the reverse side of the slip was not examined or at least photographed by the Police in 1949, nor during the microscopic examination by Adelaide University.
Following that examination, the torn slip was handed back to Gerry Feltus it was he who had had the slip in his safekeeping for many years.
I am grateful to have the high-resolution images of the torn slip. This has enabled me to examine and find concealed letters and numbers within the lettering of the words TAMAM SHUD.
This is yet another Godesend because, sadly, Gerry Feltus has mislaid the original torn slip, and it cannot be submitted to the current inquest nor to SAPOL forensic team members.
Of all the strange coincidences. The only two pieces of hard evidence that were in existence no longer are. No comment
ReplyDeleteVeritas2, you beat me to it by seconds! Saw you words and they're almost exactly my thouights, what the Hell's going on?
ReplyDeleteSurely not, where did you get it from?
ReplyDeleteWhat's in the torn piece and the book? That has to be the biggest coincidence ever. There must be something in the book and the torn slip that someone doesn't want anyone to see. What did you find in the concealed parts?
ReplyDeleteBefore getting into the details on this post, this is a good time to refresh our memories on just what the Inquest is all about. From the outset it has been about the Identity of the remains and whether or not they belong to the Somerton Man.
ReplyDeleteWhat that means is that the Coroner will be looking first and foremost at any evidence that either directly identifies the remains or points him in a direction as to who the Somerton Man might be. We need to be thinking in terms of the plaster bust, the Paul Lawson information, the Autopsy details, the Astrea labs report, the complete details of just where and when the hair samples were taken, where any samples taken from Webb family members and if so when?, Dr Dwyers dental chart is a key piece of information of course. The evidence submitted in relation to the code concealments and how will that be treated? This takes on more significance in the absence of the two pieces of evidence referred to in the Post above. Forensics will hold whatever answers are found, I find it hard to believe that the photographs of the Webb family will play any part in this inquest but, stranger things have happened.
Possible outcomes? I really don't know for certain, there are quite a number of options including that the man was a spy or in some way engaged in espionage.
Your high resolution photos aren't as good as having the originals to work with. Will the coroner accept them in evidence?
ReplyDeleteTrue, the original evidentiary material is always going to be better. But in the absence of the originals they're the next best thing, the challenge is proving that the photos I have are from the originals and that the micro letters and numbers are just that and not artifacts of some kind. I'm as confident as I can be but in the end it's entirely up to the coroner. Being accurate is one thing but will this information lead to the identity of the Somerton Man. It will tell us what he was with a fair degree of certainty but his name is another thing altogether.
ReplyDeleteI think you've got your work cut out there my friend. Would have helped if you lived in Adelaide like the Prof and GF.
ReplyDeleteI think the Coroner will do a good job regardless,while it's an old case there's still a lot of interest. If anything the missing/mislaid evidence will increase the level of interest. Who knows one or both of them might turn up?
ReplyDeleteSomething well adrift here. One item being mislaid but two and the only two that were left? Doesn't work for me it's really hard to swallow.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that it's coincidence, the case is choc a bloc with them. Wouldn't surprise me really. Has anyone asked the prof if it's true? Where did you get it from anyway?
ReplyDeleteJason, There's quite a lot in both pieces and included it in my submission. It will be in the book as well. Might post some over the next week.
ReplyDeleteThanks Gordon. Do you know when they went missing? Was wondering if it was after your submission.
ReplyDeleteHi Delvina, I knew about this around 6 months ago, came as a surprise. I had been sending information for a while. I have absolute trust in the people at SAPOL
ReplyDeleteWait for the usual suspects to claim they knew about it first :)
ReplyDeleteHello Gordon, surely Gerry F would recall the scrap of paper having a triangle or a letter or two on the other side to the TS logo. Has he been approached to confirm as it’s surely something that would stay in one’s memory?
ReplyDeleteOne thing would lay in the Coroner’s mind and it’s that time doesn’t erase facts in this electronic age. Previous errors and omissions will appear at some point, so strength of a submitter’s opinions won’t overcome a less strenuous fact.
Hi Alan, Hope all is well with you. I agree, I have tried to contact Gerry a few times over the past year without success. It’s interesting that the Police have never published an image of the reverse side of the slip. You would have noted that the image shown by Jimmy Durham at the 1949 inquest was only a rhoneostat copy of the front with the words TAMAM SHUD and this despite Len Brown’s evidence that there were words on the back. Fast forward to Adelaide University’s microscopic examination and again no image of the reverse side was shown. It doesn’t sit right. I guess someone could ask the Prof if he has such a photo.
ReplyDeleteOn that torn slip, how come that some images show it as being white and the Uni version turns up a tan colour? The white one was in the Advertise and had a blue background but the one I saw from the Zuni didn’t have any background. Are we looking at two different torn slips?
ReplyDeleteHi Jason, it is a little confusing but it is the same slip. Lighting can produce all kinds of effects including apparent colour shifts, the term is ‘metamerism’ not sure what kind of lighting was used by the University at that time the microscope could have used incandescent or LED.
ReplyDeleteFor those who are fairly new to the Somerton Man case and particulately in the light of the current Inquest, it’s important to note that Police Investigation and inquest are charged with ascertaining the identity of the Somerton Man. To be more precise, the Police have received funding for their role in the work, it has a budget. Whether or not that budget has reached its limit I really wouldn’t know.
ReplyDeleteFor the purpose of this comment, let’s keep to some of the known facts about the man’s body and work through them:
1. On December 1st 1948 a body was discovered on Somerton Beach.
2. An autopsy was carried out by Dr. Dwyer. Amongst his tasks, he drew a dental chart of the man’s teeth at that autopsy. His report and that chart were submitted to the 1949 inquest and we have a copy of that chart which is to be found in the Inquest records. Other photographs including two of the man’s face are in the inquest records. Other evidence and statements, depositions are amongst the court documents.
3. Subsequently, commencing on December 10th 1948, the man’s body was embalmed. A legitimate question at this point would be was this the same body that was found on the beach?
4. Over time, numerous people came forward in the hope of identifying the man. There are no recorded successful identifications.
5. The embalming process went on over a period of almost 4 months.
6. In June 1949, Adelaide Museum’s Taxidermist, Paul Lawson was asked to make a plaster bust of the man’s head and shoulders. In an interview with Mr. Lawson, he told me that he saw significant differences between the facial features of the body and the Autopsy photographs and the body was not in good condition. He was advised by Police to model the face of the bust on the Police autopsy photographs which he did. A legitimate question at this point is, was the body worked on by Mr Lawson, the same body that was retrieved from the beach and photographed at the time of the Autopsy?
7. In a later interview with Mr. Lawson, he told of a request from Cleland to remove the skull of the man and replace it with a ‘dummy’ skull. Mr.Lawson commenced removing the skull by carefully unpicking the sutures on the man’s head. He remarked that the suture work was extremely fine and not what he expected to see. On removing the skin and inspecting the skull, he found that the interior of the cranium was clean, there was no trace of human tissue to be seen. It had been completely cleaned out. He was adamant about this fact. Before he had completed the removal task, a detective arrived at the morgue and told him to stop the removal and leave the body as it was going to be imminently buried. In fact it was several days later that a funeral was held.These details are not mentioned in Mr Lawson’s diaries recorded at the time. There are photographs taken pre burial. These photographs show no resemblance to the facial features of the man at the autopsy apart from the ears which are almost identical. The legitimate questions here are, were the pre burial photographs of the same body worked on by Mr. Lawson? Was the body that was subsequently buried, the same body? Why was the skull ‘cleaned’ out as described by Mr. Lawson?
There are more questions that could be asked here but these, in my view, are the ones that would likely be high on the list for the inquest to answer given the brief to find out whether the exhumed remains are those of the Somerton Man.
So many opportunities for skullduggery!
ReplyDeleteAmusing but true. There are gaps in the chain of evidence that, apparently have no logical explanation. However, on reading through all the various documents from the case, reference is made to numerous photographs being in the Police records. Unfortunately it is not specific information so I cannot say which the photographs are with two exceptions. There is a copy of another photograph of the code page amongst the documents and there is a reference to a third, post autopsy photograph of the deceased man.
ReplyDeleteProbably not the right thread but was wondering whether you’d written anything about the tiny tunnels hidden beneath Adelaide streets? I know there were some disused bomb shelters near Glenelg but we’re there any linked tunnels there as well/
ReplyDeleteSandy, good question. I think the disused bomb shelters in and around Glenelg were covered as you point out but I I’d never looked for tunnels as such. I recall reading about some tunnels in Adelaide and have notes on them. I’ll take a look and may post if they extend out to Glenelg or perhaps some other relevance.
ReplyDeleteThere was talk some years ago about a paedophile ring in Adelaide in the 1940s, something to do with ABC radio. Could TSM have been involved with that?
ReplyDeleteHello, short answer is no, this has not been covered here, I was made aware of it some years ago and did some research but found no obvious connection. Some years later of course the Beaumont case arose, tragic case of missing children thought to have been abducted and killed. I think that the CM blog has that case as their focus amongst others.
ReplyDeleteAlan Hamil, I have tried to follow the links that you sent without success. Tried on iPad, Mobile and desktop but no joy. I installed the app and the same story. Can you send them by email?
ReplyDelete