Unsolved Taman Shud Case - The Somerton Man

peteb

Debutant
Jul 4, 2012
101
73
AFL Club
Melbourne
Well Pete, as you have seen before, what you see across Fedosimov's nose is a shadow. And quite frankly I am not going to get dragged into one of your 'checkmate' situations. You're on your own Pete, just maybe you'll be getting one of those 'well-deserved smackdowns' as I think you once described it.



1570525944363.png
1570525944363.png
1570526048965.png


1570526105170.png


Checkmate, again.
 
Last edited:

Redacted

All Australian
Sep 16, 2019
991
1,284
Western Australia
AFL Club
West Coast
But why would SA Police either acquiescence to covering up the identity of a dead man, or intelligence services obfuscate a possible identification by SA Police?
Would identification raise questions of an assassination?

There's very little other rationale to covering up an identification after so many years.

Otherwise the probabilities are personal reasons between Jessica and Prosper. Maybe something that would uncover an unsavoury past. Prostitution perhaps? Was SM a lonely old John who might've knocked her up and been blackmailed by them?

The code stuff is intriguing, but does it point to a past that neither wanted divulged, which had flown under the radar of authorities?

I supposed there's 4 paths.

1. Keep looking for his identity amongst the espionage set. Try and crack the code. Hoping that it will provide a direction to answer the riddle.

2. Trace the movements of Jessica and search for any associates of Jessica (or Prosper) and people who frequented places where either were at the time that Jessica conceived.

3. Trace any physical evidence on the body or possessions of the SM to their origins. Point of sale etc. But there'd be no one left alive to interview. It might give us a place of domicile though.

4. Scattergun search of photos of anyone that might match SM, using any lead, place of DNA origin, occupations that might match physical build, passenger arrivals in the time frame, name matches to clothing labels, missing persons reports, suggestions in early newspaper correspondences etc.

Every lead ruled out narrows the search. Still a big search though, and I think the danger is tunnel vision can set in when there is so much to search through.


Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Redacted

All Australian
Sep 16, 2019
991
1,284
Western Australia
AFL Club
West Coast
1 semi rhetorical question that I have:

What if we identify SM, but that's it, no uncovering of why he was there. Nada zip for whether he ever reached his destination. An identity, but No explanation for his death.

Conversely, if by a miracle we found a full blown written confession or suicide note which fully explains why he was there and how he died, but didn't tell us who he was.

Which would you prefer?

I think I'd prefer the 1st. At least there'll be a name on a grave.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 

Redacted

All Australian
Sep 16, 2019
991
1,284
Western Australia
AFL Club
West Coast
Oh, before I forget. If SA Police have solved the case or are close to solving it because of the DNA thingy-ma-jiggery magic science stuff, they'll have to find his relative's first to inform them, before they tell us. So for all I know, the case might already be well solved. I wonder if they'd tell us if it hasn't, occasionally?

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 
Oct 12, 2017
9,233
28,152
AFL Club
Fremantle
Bluey, I've had my stuff pulled apart by experts for years, and for better or worse, but I did learn one lesson about building a hypotheses - count the IFs;

This is how I read your response :

IF he's possibly had his trousers changed or IF what Strapps described (brown with a stripe) wasn't that different to the plain brown (IF it was a light stripe). IF he had his trousers changed, what Strapps described could have been the same fabric and his double breasted jacket.

Four IFs is out old mate, sorry.

This is how Feltus worded it:

‘It was later established that the following items were found with the stranger: a handkerchief*, a pair of underpants (jockey type)**, a singlet**, train ticket, a bus ticket, a part packet of chewing gum (Juicy Fruit), two* combs, a box of Bryant and May matches (quarter full)* and an Army Club Cigarette Packet, containing seven cigarettes of another brand (
* was not on Moss’ list of items found on the body
** possibly refers to what the body was wearing, but why no cardigan, tie, shoes or socks ?

I might be wrong, but I get the notion you have not been able to get your hands on a copy of Feltus' The Unknown Man.
No if's or buts when you change the content and meaning of what I wrote. I'll put this another way.

I know exactly what the suit coat material was and it matches what you are now calling faun-brown striped when describing the trousers that Strapps said he saw. Strapps described them as brown stripped trousers which he thought were part of a suit. What he describes matches the double breasted suit jacket fabric that SM was wearing.

I'm suggesting the image of the fabric below is what Strapps saw that evening when he saw the trousers of SM, and that he did have his trousers changed between the time Strapps saw him and when he was discovered the next morning.

1570535474361.png
From 1978 Stuart Littlemore documentary
It also collaborates with the two witnesses (Neil Day and Mr Lyon) who saw the man that night and the next morning and were certain it was the same man in the same position although they weren't close enough to describe his clothing in detail.


Moss did find two combs. "The comb produced was on the body, also the chewing gum and the metal comb".

You missed that as well as the railway ticket and tram ticket and also there was a tramway bus ticket.

I searched the clothing, found a railway ticket to Henley Beach, also a bus ticket, a tramway 'bus ticket .. There were cigarettes on the body, which were in a packet. I did not compare them with the one that was partly smoked. The packet produced looks like the cigarettes I found.. The bus ticket produced and the railway ticket produced are similar to the tickets I found on the body.

Packet containing these articles put in, marked Exhibit C.1. P.C. Moss


You need to read his statement to see his came immediately after Lyons and Cleland added to Lyons statement a totally different proposition that there was an unsmoked and unlit cigarette that was above SMs ear when found. Although this may have pressured him to change his statement as he was adamant that the cigarette was partially smoked and in his opinion dropped out of his mouth between his collar and neck.

His was a detailed and honest statement of what he found being first on the scene. From reading the full sworn statement in the detail he has provided he's not the type to forget to list something. He did not include matches and also only said the bus ticket and railway ticket he was shown at the Inquest were similar to the tickets he found, not exact. So possibly they indicated different travel than what's been promoted?

PC Moss only listed what was found on the body when it was discovered and not the clothes he was wearing. All of what he was wearing was listed by Det Sgt Leane. (see Inquest statement) and contain all the items you are asking above about what happened to them. Nothing, they were all listed.

So you're making up a mystery where there is none except for the matches and the important point of whether the cigarette was smoked or not!
 
Oct 12, 2017
9,233
28,152
AFL Club
Fremantle
Outstanding questions, thanks.

Matches.
Moss didn't list them as being found on the body.(Deposition)
Leane didn't list them when he itemised the contents of the suitcase. (Feltus)
Feltus was very circumspect about the additional items that were found with the body, his hint is the phrase 'it was later established.' That, to me, indicates Feltus wasn't the one who established it.

Conclusions are (1) the matches were planted (2) the evidence was otherwise contaminated, police evidence lockups being as they were.

Teeth. Cleland found no sign of grooves in his teeth, false choppers in those days were braced with metal and left marks.
I think you need to read the Inquest findings for accuracy.

Leane doesn't list the matches as being on the body (not suitcase contents) so how could he have lit and smoked the cigarette that P.C. Moss steadfastly swears he did?

He couldn't have so one of them is lying. Cleland adds to Lyons's witness statement that the cigarette wasn't smoked and unlit.

Matches planted and listed by Leane to indicate SM lit his own cigarette and they could possibly suggest suicide (it seemed to be going around)?

PC Moss forgets or mistakenly misplaces the matches and are not added to his list? I don't think this happened as this man being the first on the scene was only doing what he was trained to do in recording the scene and was detailed in his deposition.

This is only one of the times Cleland has made questionable additions or demonstrates questionable behaviour to the Inquest.

If Det Sgt Leane was lying was he being directed from those "higher up" to make the death look like a suicide or keep the man's identity hidden? Going from Adelaide to a new position at ASIO only months after the Inquest suggests he may have been following orders from higher ups, and this wasn't the only misdirecting that he helped in.
 

Gordon1552

Senior List
Oct 7, 2019
207
199
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
The differences are clear in the image comparisons below, you are aware of this I think Pete as we have discussed them before. The considered opinion of a couple of photographers is that the original image is, in fact, a composite taken very probably by Sovfoto, it's a studio photograph and the two men may not even have been together, they were could well have been photographed separately. When you examine the pic very carefully there are differences in lighting and the background of the aircraft and crew members is wrongly focused. You really do have to see the actual photograph to get the full detail:

FED_NOV_compNEGmkd.png

FEDOSIMOV_hires_scan (1).png
 
Last edited:

Gordon1552

Senior List
Oct 7, 2019
207
199
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I think you need to read the Inquest findings for accuracy.

Leane doesn't list the matches as being on the body (not suitcase contents) so how could he have lit and smoked the cigarette that P.C. Does Moss steadfastly swear he did?

He couldn't have so one of them is lying. Cleland adds to Lyons's witness statement that the cigarette wasn't smoked and unlit.

Matches planted and listed by Leane to indicate SM lit his own cigarette and they could possibly suggest suicide (it seemed to be going around)?

PC Moss forgets or mistakenly misplaces the matches and are not added to his list? I don't think this happened as this man being the first on the scene was only doing what he was trained to do in recording the scene and was detailed in his deposition.

This is only one of the times Cleland has made questionable additions or demonstrates questionable behaviour to the Inquest.

If Det Sgt Leane was lying was he being directed from those "higher up" to make the death look like a suicide or keep the man's identity hidden? Going from Adelaide to a new position at ASIO only months after the Inquest suggests he may have been following orders from higher ups, and this wasn't the only misdirecting that he helped in.

!B7sP6DQB2k~$(KGrHqUOKpoEy+jC1uQUBM09wJtscg~~_35.JPG
VictorianCollections-medium.jpg


Let's walk through the issue of the cigarette and matches. Here you have SM sitting by the wall in his last minutes he decides to have a cigarette, he puts his hand in his trouser? pocket and brings out his packet of Army Club smokes takes out one of his Kensitas cigarettes. He reaches again into his pocket, left or right or jacket?, and gets his box of matches. He puts the cigarette in his mouth, he opens the box of matches, takes one out and strikes it, he lights his cigarette. So far so good? Now, his next step would have been to 'shake the match so that it goes out or perhaps just drop it on the sand or a combination, he may have stopped smoking for a minute or three so that the cigarette, not being puffed, would have gone out and hwen the mans last breath was taken, the cigarette dropped from his lips and landed between his cheek and the lapel of his coat. There would have been no blistering if it had gone out prior to dropping. And that was that. Except, where's the match that he dropped? It would have been right alongside him and more than likely it should have been on the surface? No dead match.

It does raise a question about Moss's statement regarding the presence of a part smoked a cigarette, do you think that, if he was as observant as he is made out to be, the first thing he would have looked for is either a dead match or the presence of a lighter?

Not sure of the branding on the matchbox, Redheads was a BRYMAY brand in Australia but whether they also sold their traditional UK branding I don't know.

For anyone who doesn't yet have the Inquest doc, here it is:

 

Gordon1552

Senior List
Oct 7, 2019
207
199
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
No if's or buts when you change the content and meaning of what I wrote. I'll put this another way.

I know exactly what the suit coat material was and it matches what you are now calling faun-brown striped when describing the trousers that Strapps said he saw. Strapps described them as brown stripped trousers which he thought were part of a suit. What he describes matches the double breasted suit jacket fabric that SM was wearing.

I'm suggesting the image of the fabric below is what Strapps saw that evening when he saw the trousers of SM, and that he did have his trousers changed between the time Strapps saw him and when he was discovered the next morning.

View attachment 760990From 1978 Stuart Littlemore documentary
It also collaborates with the two witnesses (Neil Day and Mr Lyon) who saw the man that night and the next morning and were certain it was the same man in the same position although they weren't close enough to describe his clothing in detail.


Moss did find two combs. "The comb produced was on the body, also the chewing gum and the metal comb".

You missed that as well as the railway ticket and tram ticket and also there was a tramway bus ticket.

I searched the clothing, found a railway ticket to Henley Beach, also a bus ticket, a tramway 'bus ticket .. There were cigarettes on the body, which were in a packet. I did not compare them with the one that was partly smoked. The packet produced looks like the cigarettes I found.. The bus ticket produced and the railway ticket produced are similar to the tickets I found on the body.

Packet containing these articles put in, marked Exhibit C.1. P.C. Moss


You need to read his statement to see his came immediately after Lyons and Cleland added to Lyons statement a totally different proposition that there was an unsmoked and unlit cigarette that was above SMs ear when found. Although this may have pressured him to change his statement as he was adamant that the cigarette was partially smoked and in his opinion dropped out of his mouth between his collar and neck.

His was a detailed and honest statement of what he found being first on the scene. From reading the full sworn statement in the detail he has provided he's not the type to forget to list something. He did not include matches and also only said the bus ticket and railway ticket he was shown at the Inquest were similar to the tickets he found, not exact. So possibly they indicated different travel than what's been promoted?

PC Moss only listed what was found on the body when it was discovered and not the clothes he was wearing. All of what he was wearing was listed by Det Sgt Leane. (see Inquest statement) and contain all the items you are asking above about what happened to them. Nothing, they were all listed.

So you're making up a mystery where there is none except for the matches and the important point of whether the cigarette was smoked or not!

Relevant Photos
1. Somerton Beach, showing what appears to be a ramp down to the left of this image, taken in 1944. The photo beneath showing a later view with a concrete wall and steps installed. This is the most common pic shown but I don't know when it was actually taken/published.

Novita_history_Somerton_house.jpg

location-of-body-crippled-childrens-home.jpg
of SMs

2. Suitcase items and trousers being presented by Leane and Brown. Note that there appear to be just 2 laundry marks and not 3 in the close-up pic of the trousers. You can also make out the repair to the hip pocket in the first image. I don't know whether that's a mark on the pic or a stitch in the trouser cuff.


5258008-1x1-700x700.jpg


SMtrousers.jpg
 

Attachments

  • SMtrousers.jpg
    SMtrousers.jpg
    637.7 KB · Views: 71

peteb

Debutant
Jul 4, 2012
101
73
AFL Club
Melbourne
The differences are clear in the image comparisons below, you are aware of this I think Pete as we have discussed them before. The considered opinion of a couple of photographers is that the original image is, in fact, a composite taken very probably by Sovfoto, it's a studio photograph and the two men may not even have been together, they were could well have been photographed separately. When you examine the pic very carefully there are differences in lighting and the background of the aircraft and crew members is wrongly focused. You really do have to see the actual photograph to get the full detail:

View attachment 761042
View attachment 761043
Yes, we have discussed them before, but seeing as how you have now changed the playing field I’ll call your self- justification what it is. ... bullshit.
 

peteb

Debutant
Jul 4, 2012
101
73
AFL Club
Melbourne
No if's or buts when you change the content and meaning of what I wrote. I'll put this another way.

I know exactly what the suit coat material was and it matches what you are now calling faun-brown striped when describing the trousers that Strapps said he saw. Strapps described them as brown stripped trousers which he thought were part of a suit. What he describes matches the double breasted suit jacket fabric that SM was wearing.

I'm suggesting the image of the fabric below is what Strapps saw that evening when he saw the trousers of SM, and that he did have his trousers changed between the time Strapps saw him and when he was discovered the next morning.

View attachment 760990From 1978 Stuart Littlemore documentary
It also collaborates with the two witnesses (Neil Day and Mr Lyon) who saw the man that night and the next morning and were certain it was the same man in the same position although they weren't close enough to describe his clothing in detail.


Moss did find two combs. "The comb produced was on the body, also the chewing gum and the metal comb".

You missed that as well as the railway ticket and tram ticket and also there was a tramway bus ticket.

I searched the clothing, found a railway ticket to Henley Beach, also a bus ticket, a tramway 'bus ticket .. There were cigarettes on the body, which were in a packet. I did not compare them with the one that was partly smoked. The packet produced looks like the cigarettes I found.. The bus ticket produced and the railway ticket produced are similar to the tickets I found on the body.

Packet containing these articles put in, marked Exhibit C.1. P.C. Moss


You need to read his statement to see his came immediately after Lyons and Cleland added to Lyons statement a totally different proposition that there was an unsmoked and unlit cigarette that was above SMs ear when found. Although this may have pressured him to change his statement as he was adamant that the cigarette was partially smoked and in his opinion dropped out of his mouth between his collar and neck.

His was a detailed and honest statement of what he found being first on the scene. From reading the full sworn statement in the detail he has provided he's not the type to forget to list something. He did not include matches and also only said the bus ticket and railway ticket he was shown at the Inquest were similar to the tickets he found, not exact. So possibly they indicated different travel than what's been promoted?

PC Moss only listed what was found on the body when it was discovered and not the clothes he was wearing. All of what he was wearing was listed by Det Sgt Leane. (see Inquest statement) and contain all the items you are asking above about what happened to them. Nothing, they were all listed.

So you're making up a mystery where there is none except for the matches and the important point of whether the cigarette was smoked or not!
‘He did have his trousers changed.’
So the fellow seen carrying a fellow along the beach later that night was the fellow who picked him up after about 7:30 pm, took him somewhere, cleaned him up, took off his trousers singlet and jockeys - his shirt, tie and cardigan, and his coat because we all know when you throw up on yourself everything gets spattered - and using a ready supply of clothing either replaced what couldn’t be cleaned up or refitted him with the cleaned article.
Fair dinkum Bluey, old son, did you think this comedy routine through to the end before you committed it as a response?
 

Gordon1552

Senior List
Oct 7, 2019
207
199
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Here's the file on Emil Julius Klaus FUCHS. It's too big for me to upload here.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
REDACTED
I neglected to mention that when Fedosimov met Harry Gold in the Earl Theater, they used a particular ID confirmation technique as in:

First Part
Opening: Can you tell me how to get to ....
Response: As a matter of fact I am going that way myself

First part of ID successful

Second Part
Single piece of paper torn in two pieces, one part given to HG the other to Fedosimov
The participants produce their pieces and match them (Or not)

You wonder whether that was the case with SM, the first, oral part wasn't correctly answered so the hidden paper slip wasn't produced?
 

Redacted

All Australian
Sep 16, 2019
991
1,284
Western Australia
AFL Club
West Coast
REDACTED
I neglected to mention that when Fedosimov met Harry Gold in the Earl Theater, they used a particular ID confirmation technique as in:

First Part
Opening: Can you tell me how to get to ....
Response: As a matter of fact I am going that way myself

First part of ID successful

Second Part
Single piece of paper torn in two pieces, one part given to HG the other to Fedosimov
The participants produce their pieces and match them (Or not)

You wonder whether that was the case with SM, the first, oral part wasn't correctly answered so the hidden paper slip wasn't produced?
If the trousers were changed, then SM didn't put the TS in the fob pocket, therefore the book wasn't SMs and neither was the "code".
Was the TS already in the fob pocket and whoever swapped his trousers forget to remove it and thus decided to have the book found after publicity of the TS, or was the TS deliberately planted, hoping that investigators would think that SM put it there himself, and therefore assume that SM had suicidal thoughts, in case they discovered he was poisoned?

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 

Gordon1552

Senior List
Oct 7, 2019
207
199
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
If the trousers were changed, then SM didn't put the TS in the fob pocket, therefore the book wasn't SMs and neither was the "code".
Was the TS already in the fob pocket and whoever swapped his trousers forget to remove it and thus decided to have the book found after publicity of the TS, or was the TS deliberately planted, hoping that investigators would think that SM put it there himself, and therefore assume that SM had suicidal thoughts, in case they discovered he was poisoned?

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
That's a totally new thought regarding the torn piece already being in the fob pocket. I don't think anyone has ever mentioned that. I don't think it likely that the book was SMs, possible but not likely. The code was detected using UV light and in a discussion that I had with Gerry Feltus some years ago he told me that it was not written pencil marks but the marks left perhaps by a pencil that formed indentations in the paper. So whoever had the book may not have known of the existence of those indented markings. I have replicated the method and it is doable. It is INK H a technique used by SOE in WW2.

I think it's worth working through the options that you've now created based on the piece not being with SM until the trousers were changed. Good thought.
 

Gordon1552

Senior List
Oct 7, 2019
207
199
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
No if's or buts when you change the content and meaning of what I wrote. I'll put this another way.

I know exactly what the suit coat material was and it matches what you are now calling faun-brown striped when describing the trousers that Strapps said he saw. Strapps described them as brown stripped trousers which he thought were part of a suit. What he describes matches the double breasted suit jacket fabric that SM was wearing.

I'm suggesting the image of the fabric below is what Strapps saw that evening when he saw the trousers of SM, and that he did have his trousers changed between the time Strapps saw him and when he was discovered the next morning.

View attachment 760990From 1978 Stuart Littlemore documentary
It also collaborates with the two witnesses (Neil Day and Mr Lyon) who saw the man that night and the next morning and were certain it was the same man in the same position although they weren't close enough to describe his clothing in detail.


Moss did find two combs. "The comb produced was on the body, also the chewing gum and the metal comb".

You missed that as well as the railway ticket and tram ticket and also there was a tramway bus ticket.

I searched the clothing, found a railway ticket to Henley Beach, also a bus ticket, a tramway 'bus ticket .. There were cigarettes on the body, which were in a packet. I did not compare them with the one that was partly smoked. The packet produced looks like the cigarettes I found.. The bus ticket produced and the railway ticket produced are similar to the tickets I found on the body.

Packet containing these articles put in, marked Exhibit C.1. P.C. Moss


You need to read his statement to see his came immediately after Lyons and Cleland added to Lyons statement a totally different proposition that there was an unsmoked and unlit cigarette that was above SMs ear when found. Although this may have pressured him to change his statement as he was adamant that the cigarette was partially smoked and in his opinion dropped out of his mouth between his collar and neck.

His was a detailed and honest statement of what he found being first on the scene. From reading the full sworn statement in the detail he has provided he's not the type to forget to list something. He did not include matches and also only said the bus ticket and railway ticket he was shown at the Inquest were similar to the tickets he found, not exact. So possibly they indicated different travel than what's been promoted?

PC Moss only listed what was found on the body when it was discovered and not the clothes he was wearing. All of what he was wearing was listed by Det Sgt Leane. (see Inquest statement) and contain all the items you are asking above about what happened to them. Nothing, they were all listed.

So you're making up a mystery where there is none except for the matches and the important point of whether the cigarette was smoked or not!

Image of the SMs coat showing the label torn away. You can also see the pattern/stripes in this image but I think that's just the lining of the coat?
 

Attachments

  • 3-the-removed-label-from-the-coat-he-was-wearing-e1541571348918.png
    3-the-removed-label-from-the-coat-he-was-wearing-e1541571348918.png
    138.6 KB · Views: 38
Oct 12, 2017
9,233
28,152
AFL Club
Fremantle
‘He did have his trousers changed.’
So the fellow seen carrying a fellow along the beach later that night was the fellow who picked him up after about 7:30 pm, took him somewhere, cleaned him up, took off his trousers singlet and jockeys - his shirt, tie and cardigan, and his coat because we all know when you throw up on yourself everything gets spattered - and using a ready supply of clothing either replaced what couldn’t be cleaned up or refitted him with the cleaned article.
Fair dinkum Bluey, old son, did you think this comedy routine through to the end before you committed it as a response?
You keep baiting contributors that are actually looking at original documents and want to add to the discussion rather than playing games and scoring points without considering the facts. Baiting is not allowed on this site and you're not a mod on here to only have your point of view promoted.

The most logical assumption is that Mr Strapp made a mistake and was actually describing what SM was found in the morning. However Strapps is actually describing trousers that matched and part of the suit of the same fabric that the double breasted coat was. So facts are it was the same man that was seen that night and found the next morning. Anyone can only suggest senarios to explain what happened further than this and not change the facts.

I didn't see anywhere in the Inquest the statement of a man who saw someone being carried later that night, but assuming this is correct and assuming Strapps statement is correct (it may not be) then someone did pick him up take him to a car to another location where his trousers were changed. I'd be looking at whether the man who found the Whitcome and Tomes copy of the Tamam Shud was associated with the Communist party, and SM could have left his copy of Rubyait in the car in this scenario.
 
Oct 12, 2017
9,233
28,152
AFL Club
Fremantle
If the trousers were changed, then SM didn't put the TS in the fob pocket, therefore the book wasn't SMs and neither was the "code".
Was the TS already in the fob pocket and whoever swapped his trousers forget to remove it and thus decided to have the book found after publicity of the TS, or was the TS deliberately planted, hoping that investigators would think that SM put it there himself, and therefore assume that SM had suicidal thoughts, in case they discovered he was poisoned?

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
The other statement of note that police constable Moss made was that "I did not find the slip of paper with the words Taman Shud"

Was that because he didn't look in the fob pocket or it was so small he didn't notice or it wasn't in the fob pocket when SM was discovered?

I've come to the conclusion that Moss is honest and with basic police procedure he would have found the paper in the fob pocket if it was there.

Moss resisted pressure from Cleland in changing his statement (based on the notes Cleland added to Lyon's statement about the cigarette) re the cigarette or matches and the tram, train and bus tickets don't match what he initially discovered on the body and he say so.

I think Cleland has added the Tamam Shud paper and while the Rubaiyat SM had might have been the Whitcomes and Tomes version, the Paper and font of the Tamam Shud Cleland says was in the fob pocket of SM is from another book, a Collins version.
 
Oct 12, 2017
9,233
28,152
AFL Club
Fremantle
But why would SA Police either acquiescence to covering up the identity of a dead man, or intelligence services obfuscate a possible identification by SA Police?
Would identification raise questions of an assassination?

There's very little other rationale to covering up an identification after so many years.

Otherwise the probabilities are personal reasons between Jessica and Prosper. Maybe something that would uncover an unsavoury past. Prostitution perhaps? Was SM a lonely old John who might've knocked her up and been blackmailed by them?

The code stuff is intriguing, but does it point to a past that neither wanted divulged, which had flown under the radar of authorities?

I supposed there's 4 paths.

1. Keep looking for his identity amongst the espionage set. Try and crack the code. Hoping that it will provide a direction to answer the riddle.

2. Trace the movements of Jessica and search for any associates of Jessica (or Prosper) and people who frequented places where either were at the time that Jessica conceived.

3. Trace any physical evidence on the body or possessions of the SM to their origins. Point of sale etc. But there'd be no one left alive to interview. It might give us a place of domicile though.

4. Scattergun search of photos of anyone that might match SM, using any lead, place of DNA origin, occupations that might match physical build, passenger arrivals in the time frame, name matches to clothing labels, missing persons reports, suggestions in early newspaper correspondences etc.

Every lead ruled out narrows the search. Still a big search though, and I think the danger is tunnel vision can set in when there is so much to search through.


Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
I think this goes higher than SA police and his identity was known to those higher than the police like Jessica Harkness said.

ASIO was only formed a few months later, March 1949, and not long after that Det Sgt Leane goes to work there and I think this is important in this case.

Whether that's because of SM's identity or something he was involved in is debatable?

As you can tell people have done years of research and no doubt have conditates that they think is most likely for SM's identity. This could easily be checked if the DNA analysis of SM's hair was made public or police checked leads that researchers have

My focus has been on looking at the original documents to see what can be relied on to find his identity.

Most of that is the physical evidence with the bust, his height, his physique including calf's, the gingery blonde hair with actual samples of his hair, the unusual teeth formation with the actual missing teeth recorded and Inquest documents saying you couldn't notice the missing teeth when he smiled or in normal conversation with him. I think probably Robyn is his son but DNA comparison is needed to be sure.

A a reminder the following is a description of ASIO

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was established in 1949 as Australia’s national security intelligence service. ASIO operates under the direction of the Director-General of Security who reports to the Attorney-General.

It has specific legislative responsibility for countering espionage and foreign interference. They work closely with partners in Australia and overseas to detect and degrade the harmful activities of our adversaries.
 
Oct 12, 2017
9,233
28,152
AFL Club
Fremantle
View attachment 761058 View attachment 761061

Let's walk through the issue of the cigarette and matches. Here you have SM sitting by the wall in his last minutes he decides to have a cigarette, he puts his hand in his trouser? pocket and brings out his packet of Army Club smokes takes out one of his Kensitas cigarettes. He reaches again into his pocket, left or right or jacket?, and gets his box of matches. He puts the cigarette in his mouth, he opens the box of matches, takes one out and strikes it, he lights his cigarette. So far so good? Now, his next step would have been to 'shake the match so that it goes out or perhaps just drop it on the sand or a combination, he may have stopped smoking for a minute or three so that the cigarette, not being puffed, would have gone out and hwen the mans last breath was taken, the cigarette dropped from his lips and landed between his cheek and the lapel of his coat. There would have been no blistering if it had gone out prior to dropping. And that was that. Except, where's the match that he dropped? It would have been right alongside him and more than likely it should have been on the surface? No dead match.

It does raise a question about Moss's statement regarding the presence of a part smoked a cigarette, do you think that, if he was as observant as he is made out to be, the first thing he would have looked for is either a dead match or the presence of a lighter?

Not sure of the branding on the matchbox, Redheads was a BRYMAY brand in Australia but whether they also sold their traditional UK branding I don't know.

For anyone who doesn't yet have the Inquest doc, here it is:


Thanks for reprinting the Inquest documents. Perhaps you could look at the photographers "sworn statement" which I've been questioning.

1. Is saying on the 2nd December 1948 he has taken photographs of the writings found on the deceased (not mentioned by Moss or anyone else as being found on the deceased)?

2. He states he took a picture of the paper found on the deceased and both of these are Exhibits tht don't seem to be attched?

3. Most importantly he said he took a photo of the man he was told was found on Somerton beach and this an exhibit also attached however the whole statement was stopped mid sentence has not been signed properly by Cleland or the photographer. Does this make the statement invalid? Is it the photographers signature or did someone else sign it? Or doesn't any of this matter?

This is Patrick James Durham signature on his sworn statement to the Inquest. Doesn't match how every other page of the Inquest sworn statements.

1570583752927.png

P.C. Moss
1570583944964.png

John Lyons
1570584001728.png

Edmund Hall
1570584055134.png

Paul Lawson
1570584101031.png

Every single page of the sworn statements to the Inquest are as above and different to the photographer's statement.

I've read PC Moss's statement and in comparison to some others find him to be honest and have integrity. There is a possibility that he may have missed the matches or the paper with Tamam Shud. Or as Redacted has questioned, maybe the Tamam Shud paper was in another pair of trousers.

However in full comparison with statements by Leane and many examples from Cleland, in my opinion Moss hasn't missed anything and his statement is the closest to the truth.

Also, Det Sgt Brown also seems to have completed a thorough and honest investigation in the areas he was asked to contribute in.
 
Last edited:

Redacted

All Australian
Sep 16, 2019
991
1,284
Western Australia
AFL Club
West Coast
The other statement of note that police constable Moss made was that "I did not find the slip of paper with the words Taman Shud"

Was that because he didn't look in the fob pocket or it was so small he didn't notice or it wasn't in the fob pocket when SM was discovered?

I've come to the conclusion that Moss is honest and with basic police procedure he would have found the paper in the fob pocket if it was there.

Moss resisted pressure from Cleland in changing his statement (based on the notes Cleland added to Lyon's statement about the cigarette) re the cigarette or matches and the tram, train and bus tickets don't match what he initially discovered on the body and he say so.

I think Cleland has added the Tamam Shud paper and while the Rubaiyat SM had might have been the Whitcomes and Tomes version, the Paper and font of the Tamam Shud Cleland says was in the fob pocket of SM is from another book, a Collins version.

Was is Cleland, or was it Prosper? Was there 2 persons carrying SM to his final destination?
It's easy enough to say that Prosper had means, opportunity and motive, but anyone else, well that's where it gets into the realm of needing to know who SM was before motive can be elicited.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Redacted

All Australian
Sep 16, 2019
991
1,284
Western Australia
AFL Club
West Coast
Coincidences of Note. 1

Moseley Street, Glenelg SA

Death of Dr Milo Weeks Sprod, "after a short illness" 31/12/1934. Husband of Dr Elizabeth Theodora Johanna Stoffelina (Lica) Delprat (sister in law of Petrus Ephrem Teppema, who married Carmen Delprat, Musician).
Sister in law of Sir Douglas Mawson who married Francisca Adriana (Paquita) Delprat

An interest in Exotic Poisons

SummaryDate: 18.8.18. Informant: Motagoi. A passage in the Trobriand language with simultaneous English translation, numbered J185, discusses death by eating tuva, a vine with a poisonous root; and how its apparently disfiguring effects are why the spirits of those who die this way live in a separate village in the underworld. The information is written on the back of reused stationery, consisting of a wedding announcement for Carmen Delprat and P.E. Teppema in Melbourne, Australia》 https://search.alexanderstreet.com/...ographic_entity|bibliographic_details|3250615

David Roberts account of Mawson's AAE expedition, Alone on the Ice, and the deadly effect of dog liver are referenced in the plot of an episode of British television series New Tricks, where it is used to commit the almost-perfect murder.




Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Oct 12, 2017
9,233
28,152
AFL Club
Fremantle
In Pete's defence, his point about the matches is very interesting, it does seem that there is a deliberate effort to manipulate the evidence. The fact that as per my earlier comment, there was no match found next to SM actually underscores Pete's point.

I would also say that I've known Pete for about 7 years I guess and his comments and approach here are simply uncharacteristic. Life is a difficult beast to handle at times, and we none of us know what may or may not be happening in each others lives that can affect us. He has made significant contributions to the knowledge base of the SM case.
The point about the matches is very interesting and I believe if you sort out who was lying and who was telling the truth about the matches (and cigarette he was/wasn't smoking), which is the point I think Feltus was making, then it leads you into you what else you should believe in conflicting submissions.

I respect all the research that has been done on the Somerton man and discussions on the different aspects of the case and different possible identities should be able to be had without resorting to tantrums and and making up stuff about posters when something is said challenges that your thinking.

I may not agree with everything you say but totally respect all the research an information you've found.
 
Last edited:

Redacted

All Australian
Sep 16, 2019
991
1,284
Western Australia
AFL Club
West Coast
Coincidences of Note. 1

Moseley Street, Glenelg SA

Death of Dr Milo Weeks Sprod, "after a short illness" 31/12/1934. Husband of Dr Elizabeth Theodora Johanna Stoffelina (Lica) Delprat (sister in law of Petrus Ephrem Teppema, who married Carmen Delprat, Musician).
Sister in law of Sir Douglas Mawson who married Francisca Adriana (Paquita) Delprat

An interest in Exotic Poisons

SummaryDate: 18.8.18. Informant: Motagoi. A passage in the Trobriand language with simultaneous English translation, numbered J185, discusses death by eating tuva, a vine with a poisonous root; and how its apparently disfiguring effects are why the spirits of those who die this way live in a separate village in the underworld. The information is written on the back of reused stationery, consisting of a wedding announcement for Carmen Delprat and P.E. Teppema in Melbourne, Australia》 https://search.alexanderstreet.com/...ographic_entity|bibliographic_details|3250615

David Roberts account of Mawson's AAE expedition, Alone on the Ice, and the deadly effect of dog liver are referenced in the plot of an episode of British television series New Tricks, where it is used to commit the almost-perfect murder.




Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
Dr Lica Sprod who lived on Moseley Street Glenelg, then in Unley Park, was also the Aunt in law of MI5 Australian Station Chief, Robert Victor Hemblys-Scales, who married part time NEFIS informant/spy, Tania Virginia Teppema, daughter of Petrus Ephrem Teppema and Carmen Delprat.

During October 1948 they all got together in Adelaide. Tania announced her engagement to Robert Victor Hemblys Scales in December.

21 Oct 1948 - BUSY 2-DAY PROGRAM - News (Adelaide, SA.) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article129897450

25 Dec 1948 - DAUGHTER OF DUTCH MINISTER ENGAGED - The Canberra Times (ACT.) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2782629



Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Back