This post is a for any newly discovered research results in the Somerton Man Cold Case. The results with links/sources when available, will be published as comments.
Post a Comment
11 Comments
Hi
Welcome to the Tamam Shud Blog, widely regarded as the leading and most trusted fact and evidence-based blog on the Somerton Man case. We do not collect your login or address details
3/related/default
1. RICHARD C. WEBB; Text: ...law, Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Cowan.
ReplyDeleteNewspaper: The Advertiser
Publication: Feb 28 1952 - Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Summary: Miss Molly Cowan to marry Mr. Richard C. Webb on March 22 in Melbourne after staying with her aunt.
2. BAYARD KING:Adelaide where they met-will be one of the names which the US ViceCensul at Lyons, France (Mr. Bayard King) and his wife will give their baby daughter. Mrs. King's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Shields, of Hyde Park, received the news...
Occupation: US Vice-Consul at Lyons, France
Wife: Mrs. King (born Shields)
Newspaper: The Advertiser
Publication: Feb 28 1952 - Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Note the date February 28th 1952, page 10 Adelaide Advertiser. Interesting that Mr.Bayard King’s name appears in the same but separate announcement column.
Is that the same Richard C Webb?
ReplyDeleteI don’t have that information at this time.
ReplyDeleteFound it on Trove, link https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/47398058
ReplyDeleteNOVEMBER 20th 1948: The Mail Adelaide,Page 23. BAYARD KING ex OSS man but US Vice Consul in Adelaide at the Yacht Sqadron Outer Harbour meet. Interesting list of guests, a familiar name or two :Mr. King is referred to as ex Naval Intelligence analyst in other publications.
ReplyDeletelink: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/55899871?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FM%2Ftitle%2F75%2F1948%2F11%2F20%2Fpage%2F4647699%2Farticle%2F55899871
In the same edition, good coverage of the PARAFIELD AIRSHOW/Pageant with photos. It is believed that the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam was thrown into Mr Freeman’s car around this same date. It’s not known whether Mr. Freeman attended the air show.
LATEST RESEARCH NEWS:
ReplyDeleteWHEN ARE PHOTOGRAPHS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE:
n South Australia, photographs of documents are generally admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), section 57. This is because a document that reproduces the contents of another document is admissible in the same circumstances and for the same purposes as the original document, regardless of whether the original still exists. This applies to reproductions made by photographic, electronic, or other means that accurately reproduce the contents of another document.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Best Evidence Rule Modification:
The Evidence Act 1929 (SA) modifies the traditional "best evidence rule" which required the original document to be produced.
Admissibility Criteria:
A photograph of a document (or any other reproduction) is admissible if it accurately reproduces the contents of the original document.
Relevance and Accuracy:
The court will consider whether the photograph is relevant to the case and accurately reflects the contents of the original document.
Court's Role:
The court has discretion in determining whether the reproduction is an accurate representation of the original, and can rely on its own knowledge of the process used to create the reproduction.
Photographic and Electronic Reproductions:
The section applies to reproductions made by photographic, electronic, or other means, as well as other methods of reproduction.
In essence, the key is that the photographic copy must be a faithful representation of the original document, and the court will consider whether it accurately portrays the contents of the original in the context of the case.
LATEST RESEARCH NEWS:
ReplyDeleteIs Hearsay Evidence Admissible in South Australia?
As you will read, the short answers is YES, under certain circumstances.
It is important to note that the term 'Hearsay Evidence' relates to Court proceedings. In the case of the Somerton Man, we are not dealing with court case, we are dealing with an historical Cold Case and as most researchers would understand, any and all snippets of information or photographs are properly assessed for their value and their relevance.
Here is an overview of the South Australian 'Hearsay' Law together with a list of admissibility exceptions:
Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in South Australia:
1. Non-Hearsay Purpose:
Hearsay statements are admissible if they are given for a non-hearsay purpose, meaning they are not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement, but for other purposes like proving the statement was made. For example, if a witness testifies about a threat someone made, the statement is admissible to prove the threat was made, not to prove the truth of the threat.
2. Maker Unavailable:
THIS IS THE MOST RELEVANT PARAGRAPH.
The maker of the statement is unavailable to give evidence. This includes circumstances like death, illness, or being unable to locate the person.
3. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule:
There are specific exceptions to the hearsay rule outlined in the Evidence Act 1929 (SA). These include:
Statements of Deceased Persons: Statements made by a deceased person may be admissible.
Dying Declarations: Statements made by a person about to die about the circumstances of their death may be admissible.
Declarations in the Course of Duty: Statements made by someone in the course of their professional or official duty may be admissible.
Declarations as to Public or General Rights: Statements about public or general rights may be admissible.
Declarations of Pedigree: Statements about family history may be admissible.
Out of Court Admissions: Statements made by a party to the case can be used as evidence.
4. Section 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (SA):
This section addresses situations where the maker of a statement is available to give evidence. If the maker is available, the hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of the representation given by the maker or someone who perceived the representation being made, provided the occurrence of the asserted fact was fresh in the maker's memory.
5. Judicial Discretion:
In some cases, such as in trials of sexual offences, a judge may have discretion to admit hearsay evidence, particularly when the alleged victim of the offence is a person to whom a specific section of the Evidence Act applies.
6. Aboriginal Traditional Laws and Customs:
The Law Handbook SA states that Aboriginal persons are now permitted to give evidence about the traditional laws and customs of an Aboriginal group, even if such evidence would otherwise be inadmissible as hearsay.
In summary, while hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in South Australia, certain exceptions allow for its admission, particularly when the maker of the statement is unavailable or when the statement is given for a non-hearsay purpose, or under specific statutory provisions.
LATEST RESEARCH NEWS; Bayard King is listed as a Military Attaché in Adelaide. A lady, Mrs Zaki, was his guest. Mr King had met her whilst he was stationed in Baghdad. Mr.Kings presence coincided with the presence of Roger Hollis of MI5 in Australia through until late zdecember 1948. Can find no official record of their meeting up during that time but will see what the deep search may turn up.
ReplyDeleteJS, re Zaki and Bayard King, seems he was OSs naval intelligence, Not sure of his movements in WW2 but wondered how he and Zaki got to be on good enough terms that she turns up at his wedding.
ReplyDeleteThis article tells a lot about a problem with a US Military Atache in Cairo during 1942
ReplyDeletehttps://newlinesmag.com/essays/the-espionage-that-won-and-almost-lost-the-war-at-el-alamein/
Thanks Pete, a really informative read. It has a little of everything from Enigma, Turing’s role and a high level leak from an impeccable but totally unexpected source. As it happens, it’s great lead in to the next post!
ReplyDelete