Unsolved Taman Shud Case - The Somerton Man

[Redacted]

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

I wonder, whatever happened to James
Montgomery Gilchrist, jun., second secretary of the United States Embassy?

05 Dec 1947 - DIPLOMAT'S DAUGHTER ENGAGED - The West Australian (Perth, WA.) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article46821027

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Redacted]

I wonder, whatever happened to James
Montgomery Gilchrist, jun., second secretary of the United States Embassy?

05 Dec 1947 - DIPLOMAT'S DAUGHTER ENGAGED - The West Australian (Perth, WA.) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article46821027

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

Anyone want to pay $36.27 to see if this bloke is Somerton Man?

Session expired | RecordSearch | National Archives of Australia

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Redacted]

What rank is the CIA station director who's placed undercover in US Embassies? Has anyone found any US records of Mr James Montgomery Gilchrist Junior, or even a photograph?

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Redacted]

What rank is the CIA station director who's placed undercover in US Embassies? Has anyone found any US records of Mr James Montgomery Gilchrist Junior, or even a photograph?

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

Found him. Alive in 1964 living in Georgia USA , having wrote a genealogical study of his ancestry. Interestingly, he married a cousin, Dorothy Tye. He had no children.
Dead end, so to speak.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Gordon1552]

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

This is sort of relevant, it's an optical illusion and it nicely demonstrates the effects that can occur when looking at black and white images like the Fedosimov one above. Generally, it is only when you turn it negative that you can see the 'halo' that tells you there is a shadow over Feosimov/s nose and around the mouth.

If you've seen this before my apologies!

Here you see two shapes and apparently 3 shades of colouring. Which looks darker to you, the upper panel or the lower panel? Now, on the screen, place your finger horizontally where the two panels join, what do you see?

 

[Redacted]

Found him. Alive in 1964 living in Georgia USA , having wrote a genealogical study of his ancestry. Interestingly, he married a cousin, Dorothy Tye. He had no children.
Dead end, so to speak.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

Here's a picture of a cousin John Montgomery Gilchrist about similar age and taken in the 30's. As you can see, no obvious genetic deformities, even though much of James's Gilchrist ancestry married cousins.
Still can't find a photo of James Montgomery-Gilchrist though, but at least we know that he can't be SM

James G research

I believe it is a Yale University Tie that John is wearing in the photo. Could be wrong though as it's in black & white.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Gordon1552]

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.

View attachment 761163
P.C. Moss
View attachment 761165
John Lyons
View attachment 761167
Edmund Hall
View attachment 761168
Paul Lawson
View attachment 761169
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.

OK, I guess it's important to point out that, I think at least, these are all signed depositions made in the presence of Cleland as the Coroner, the people concerned would no doubt have made notes ahead of time and would have referred to them in their deposition. To an extent that would explain the somewhat hesitant remarks that we see now and then in the evidence as per Leane's words. The Coroner listens to each witness and then forms his opinion which, by and large, agree with the witness's words In the case of the matches it seems he took the information provided by Moss and Leane and made a judgement as to what likely happened.

I took a look at Jimmy Durham's Deposition and saw the last few lines in which he says 'I also have some copies of the writing from the deceased' and then the next sentence he says 'I took a photograph of the paper found on the deceased'. I guess the question is are these two sentences referring to the same piece of paper or are they referring to two separate sets of 'writing'? I understand that at the time, Jimmy Durham handed out a number of copies of the torn piece to the press. At this time, the book hadn't been handed in so the copies had the edges folded over so that no one would know the precise shape that had been torn out of the book.

Detective Brown's comments on the nature of the book being a Collins 1st edition, ( he actually inferred it must have been the first edition because it had the two words 'Taman Shud' whereas the second edition had just 'Taman', note the word Taman and not Tamam). He went on to describe the exact type of paper that the words were printed on. As you say he was very clear in his evidence. Odd then that the W&T book turned up and not a Collins version. Detective Brown is on the record as saying that the torn piece was an exact fit to the shape missing in the book that was handed in.

Two point worth mentioning, in Jimmy's statement he clearly states that he took the fingerprints of the man, however, the fingerprints that we have are not certificated and no details are entered on the form, odd. Next, Jimmy mentioned that there were 4 photographs, C5, C6, C7, and C8 of SM that he entered into evidence. We only have two. On this latter issue, when Clive Turner talked with Paul Lawson, Paul was quite firm in saying that he used the photographs of SM to construct the bust of the man as the face was very difficult to work with. Not quite what he said in his evidence.

 

[BlueE]

OK, I guess it's important to point out that, I think at least, these are all signed depositions made in the presence of Cleland as the Coroner, the people concerned would no doubt have made notes ahead of time and would have referred to them in their deposition. To an extent that would explain the somewhat hesitant remarks that we see now and then in the evidence as per Leane's words. The Coroner listens to each witness and then forms his opinion which, by and large, agree with the witness's words In the case of the matches it seems he took the information provided by Moss and Leane and made a judgement as to what likely happened.

I took a look at Jimmy Durham's Deposition and saw the last few lines in which he says 'I also have some copies of the writing from the deceased' and then the next sentence he says 'I took a photograph of the paper found on the deceased'. I guess the question is are these two sentences referring to the same piece of paper or are they referring to two separate sets of 'writing'? I understand that at the time, Jimmy Durham handed out a number of copies of the torn piece to the press. At this time, the book hadn't been handed in so the copies had the edges folded over so that no one would know the precise shape that had been torn out of the book.

Detective Brown's comments on the nature of the book being a Collins 1st edition, ( he actually inferred it must have been the first edition because it had the two words 'Taman Shud' whereas the second edition had just 'Taman', note the word Taman and not Tamam). He went on to describe the exact type of paper that the words were printed on. As you say he was very clear in his evidence. Odd then that the W&T book turned up and not a Collins version. Detective Brown is on the record as saying that the torn piece was an exact fit to the shape missing in the book that was handed in.

Two point worth mentioning, in Jimmy's statement he clearly states that he took the fingerprints of the man, however, the fingerprints that we have are not certificated and no details are entered on the form, odd. Next, Jimmy mentioned that there were 4 photographs, C5, C6, C7, and C8 of SM that he entered into evidence. We only have two. On this latter issue, when Clive Turner talked with Paul Lawson, Paul was quite firm in saying that he used the photographs of SM to construct the bust of the man as the face was very difficult to work with. Not quite what he said in his evidence.

Thanks for looking at Durhams sworn statement. I'm getting some legal advice on the unconventional way this statement was signed. It's my understanding that the witness provides and swears the statement, then is questioned in the Coronal Inquiry and then Cleland has added his notes to the person's deposition after this for some witnesses. However, I will check.

When Durham says he has copies of the writing found on the deceased he say they are Exhibits C7 and C8, but they are returned to Mr Durham.

Durham then says he took a photo of the paper found on the deceased and he produces copies of that. Note that he starts a sentence that is never finished and crossed out and his deposition is ended before he can say which Exhibit the photo of the paper is.

I take these to be referring to two different things. The writing is the code and the paper is the paper with Tamam Shud on it.

Good point about the fingerprints as they should have been labelled Exhibits but are not which could throw doubt on whether the finger prints were the SM.

None of the photos that he says he took and labelled as Exhibits C5, C6, C7 and C8 of SM were attached to the Inquest, so we can't say hat the photos he took looked like for certain, but later two photos that were given to the papers and said to be the SM did surface.

In my opinion the photos and the images of the bust taken by Lawson are not the same person and with the unusual (or illegal signing?) of Durham's statement and other irregularities makes me curious whether he refused to sign it. In my opinion it explains why Jessica had such a reaction when seeing the bust when the photo must have been in circulation and viewing the bust shouldn't have given her such surprise.

Lawson shows from his interview with Stuart Littlemore and later with others that he adheres strongly to the saying "loose lips sinks ships" and no ships will be sunk on his watch.

 

[BlueE]

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?

Yes that is the lining.

This is another view of the double breasted coat SM was wearing from Det Brown showing Stuart Littlemore. If looking from a short distance away the fabric of the trousers could be described as brown striped (or faun-brown striped?). The suit coat fabric is described in the Inquest clothe description as "Grey Brown".

So it is probable that Gordon Stapps was describing trousers that matched the double breasted suit coat that SM was wearing when he was found. He did say he thought the trousers could have been part of a suit.

 

[Gordon1552]

Yes that is the lining.

This is another view of the double breasted coat SM was wearing from Det Brown showing Stuart Littlemore. If looking from a short distance away the fabric of the trousers could be described as brown striped (or faun-brown striped?). The suit coat fabric is described in the Inquest clothe description as "Grey Brown".

So it is probable that Gordon Stapps was describing trousers that matched the double breasted suit coat that SM was wearing when he was found. He did say he thought the trousers could have been part of a suit.

View attachment 761935

The pattern looks to have multiple parallel stripes? Worth looking for some US catalogues perhaps.

Quite a few US manufacturers of 'tailored' suits, here's a few:

• Oxxford Clothes
• Brooks Brothers
• J. Press
• Hartmarx
• Paul Stuart
• Hickey Freeman

This came close except for the colour, nice tie:

 

[Gordon1552]

1. Thanks for looking at Durhams sworn statement. I'm getting some legal advice on the unconventional way this statement was signed. It's my understanding that the witness provides and swears the statement, then is questioned in the Coronal Inquiry and then Cleland has added his notes to the person's deposition after this for some witnesses. However, I will check.

2. When Durham says he has copies of the writing found on the deceased he say they are Exhibits C7 and C8, but they are returned to Mr Durham.

3. Durham then says he took a photo of the paper found on the deceased and he produces copies of that. Note that he starts a sentence that is never finished and crossed out and his deposition is ended before he can say which Exhibit the photo of the paper is.

4. I take these to be referring to two different things. The writing is the code and the paper is the paper with Tamam Shud on it.

5. Good point about the fingerprints as they should have been labelled Exhibits but are not which could throw doubt on whether the finger prints were the SM.

6. None of the photos that he says he took and labelled as Exhibits C5, C6, C7 and C8 of SM were attached to the Inquest, so we can't say hat the photos he took looked like for certain, but later two photos that were given to the papers and said to be the SM did surface.

7. In my opinion the photos and the images of the bust taken by Lawson are not the same person and with the unusual (or illegal signing?) of Durham's statement and other irregularities makes me curious whether he refused to sign it. In my opinion it explains why Jessica had such a reaction when seeing the bust when the photo must have been in circulation and viewing the bust shouldn't have given her such surprise.

8. Lawson shows from his interview with Stuart Littlemore and later with others that he adheres strongly to the saying "loose lips sinks ships" and no ships will be sunk on his watch.

Para 1. Yes, the document we are using is a transcription, having done quite a few court cases in earlier years, the process was first notes taken at the time, then statement based on notes, statement submitted and added to the case file, present in court reading from the initial notes as needed. Questions from Coroner or cross examination etc.

Para 2. The C7 and C8 exhibits were for the SM photos?

Para 3. OK

Para 4. The code wasn't at that time, recovered from the book? Maybe other writing but it is the only reference to anything other than the torn piece found with the body.

Para 5. In amongst the depositions, reference is made to how his hands were well cared for andthey didn't appear to have done manual work. The right hand prints show signs of hard work, particularly the right thumb, index and middle finger. That would be consistent with halding a tool of somesort, maybe engraving?

6. OK

7. The published photo's of SM were altered, in an article the report spoke of 'Reconstructed photographs' would be available on 4th December. A close examination of the images showed signs of modification. Have some pics somewhere, maybe upload at the weekend. Prof Abbott acknowledged thay had been altered, it's a matter of degree.

8. Mr. Lawson is old school, he was and still is to an extent, stickler for proper process. He shares that trait with Gerry Feltus. Like John Lyons, he was in the VDF/CMF during WW2, based at Keswick. That relates to another possible connection to a national organisation.

 

[BlueE]

The pattern looks to have multiple parallel stripes? Worth looking for some US catalogues perhaps.

Quite a few US manufacturers of 'tailored' suits, here's a few:

• Oxxford Clothes
• Brooks Brothers
• J. Press
• Hartmarx
• Paul Stuart
• Hickey Freeman

This came close except for the colour, nice tie:

View attachment 761969

Very nice suit and tie! Gives a good idea except for colour, what SM could have been dressed like in December 1948

I don't think it's worth chasing any clothing stores because the evidence given by the Adelaide tailor was very thorough. The suit coat was not bought off the shelf but was partially tailored.

That is, the suit was sewn to a certain state of completion then the subject was measured and the suit was then fitted to the person's individual measurements. He determined that it could only have been made in America because the sewing machine that stitched the seams in a particular way, was only available in America.

He stated that either the man bought and was fitted in America for the suit coat or he received it from someone in America.

 

[BlueE]

Para 1. Yes, the document we are using is a transcription, having done quite a few court cases in earlier years, the process was first notes taken at the time, then statement based on notes, statement submitted and added to the case file, present in court reading from the initial notes as needed. Questions from Coroner or cross examination etc.

Para 2. The C7 and C8 exhibits were for the SM photos?

Para 3. OK

Para 4. The code wasn't at that time, recovered from the book? Maybe other writing but it is the only reference to anything other than the torn piece found with the body.

Para 5. In amongst the depositions, reference is made to how his hands were well cared for andthey didn't appear to have done manual work. The right hand prints show signs of hard work, particularly the right thumb, index and middle finger. That would be consistent with halding a tool of somesort, maybe engraving?

6. OK

7. The published photo's of SM were altered, in an article the report spoke of 'Reconstructed photographs' would be available on 4th December. A close examination of the images showed signs of modification. Have some pics somewhere, maybe upload at the weekend. Prof Abbott acknowledged they had been altered, it's a matter of degree.

8. Mr. Lawson is old school, he was and still is to an extent, stickler for proper process. He shares that trait with Gerry Feltus. Like John Lyons, he was in the VDF/CMF during WW2, based at Keswick. That relates to another possible connection to a national organisation.

From Durham's statement:

Exhibits C5, C6, C7 and C8 were photos of the man Durham was told was the man found on Somerton beach. But not attached to the Inquest file.

"I also have some copies of writing found on the decd.

(Exhibits C7 and C 8 were returned to Mr Durham)"

Doesn't really make sense. The way I understood it was that C7 and C8 were photos of writing found on the deceased, but more likely two of the photos of the deceased returned to Durham.

He still says he has copies of writing found on the deceased. So I'm questioning whether the code as well as the paper with Tamam Shud written on it were recovered on 2nd December 1948.

 

[Gordon1552]

Very nice suit and tie! Gives a good idea except for colour, what SM could have been dressed like in December 1948

I don't think it's worth chasing any clothing stores because the evidence given by the Adelaide tailor was very thorough. The suit coat was not bought off the shelf but was partially tailored.

That is, the suit was sewn to a certain state of completion then the subject was measured and the suit was then fitted to the person's individual measurements. He determined that it could only have been made in America because the sewing machine that stitched the seams in a particular way, was only available in America.

He stated that either the man bought and was fitted in America for the suit coat or he received it from someone in America.

The sheer volumes in the US I guess dictated that some items would be partially tailored and then customised, they would get a better price and deliver a better service. It would be nice if we could get a close match to the pattern though, as you say it would give us a better idea of how SM would have looked.

Many internees were given clothes of servicemen, our own and US servicemen, KIA and many such items ended up with charities. It was common practice to remove labels if they had someone's name on them, a bad luck thing I think.

It was interesting that they took the coat apart, the feather stitching was the giveaway as far as Pezza was concerned, it immediately said US manufacture because of the machinery used. It made me wonder what else they were looking for. One tradecraft technique was to hide items inside linings of clothes, Leo Marks wrote about SOE hiding silk maps and codes in linings, silk because it would be undetectable in a pat-down search. The fact that the collar of the jacket had been repaired was also an indication of something not quite right. No doubt you've owned many jackets as have I and I have never had to repair a jacket collar.

As an aside although related, the torn piece being tightly rolled and pushed well down into the seam of the fob pocket was also a known tradecraft method. In a pat-down search, it would be difficult to tell the difference between what was the seam and what was a rolled-up piece of paper.

 

[Kurve]

Ooooooh la lah .....


DANCING WITH THE DEAD

Introduced by barrister and former ABC journalist Stuart Littlemore

When the body of well-dressed man was found on Adelaide's Somerton Beach in 1948, police assumed that somebody would soon come forward to identify him. But nobody did.

More than 70 years later, the mysterious case of the "Somerton Man", as he became known, regularly makes the lists of Australia’s most baffling unsolved cases.

Was he murdered? Was he a Russian spy? Was it suicide? Or was he the victim of a love triangle?

In an effort to finally unearth the truth, Adelaide University Professor Derek Abbott is pushing for the Somerton Man’s remains to be exhumed.

Professor Abbott has a more personal motivation to solve the case: He is married to a woman he believes is the Somerton Man’s granddaughter.

Airs Monday October 14, 8:00pm (AEDT), on ABCTV and iview.

Dancing with the Dead

A slain spy, suicide or something else? The baffling body-on-the-beach case of “Somerton Man” has remained a mystery for 70 years. We go inside one of Australia’s greatest true crime mysteries. Airs Monday October 14, 8:00pm (AEDT), on ABCTV and iview.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Redacted]

Wooloongabba again...

13 Apr 1946 - OVERCHARGES ALLEGED AGAINST WOMAN TAILOR - The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld.) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article50284924

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Redacted]

American made suits were sold in Australia...
18 Feb 1948 - “AMERICAN” SUITS AT 30 GUINEAS - Tribune (Sydney, NSW : 1939 - 1976) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article208108453

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Gordon1552]

American made suits were sold in Australia...
18 Feb 1948 - “AMERICAN” SUITS AT 30 GUINEAS - Tribune (Sydney, NSW : 1939 - 1976) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article208108453

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

That's another great find! It would be good to track down some pics if possible. So, if this is on the money, then we would be looking for Australian 'Yarra Falls' cloth and patterns? That might mean that he bought the suit in which case the label was deliberately torn out or it was gifted to him by a charity with the label already missing. Wonder which retailers sold them? Upmarket at that price I would have thought.

 

[BlueE]

Ooooooh la lah .....

DANCING WITH THE DEAD

Introduced by barrister and former ABC journalist Stuart Littlemore

When the body of well-dressed man was found on Adelaide's Somerton Beach in 1948, police assumed that somebody would soon come forward to identify him. But nobody did.

More than 70 years later, the mysterious case of the "Somerton Man", as he became known, regularly makes the lists of Australia’s most baffling unsolved cases.

Was he murdered? Was he a Russian spy? Was it suicide? Or was he the victim of a love triangle?

In an effort to finally unearth the truth, Adelaide University Professor Derek Abbott is pushing for the Somerton Man’s remains to be exhumed.

Professor Abbott has a more personal motivation to solve the case: He is married to a woman he believes is the Somerton Man’s granddaughter.

Airs Monday October 14, 8:00pm (AEDT), on ABCTV and iview.

Dancing with the Dead

A slain spy, suicide or something else? The baffling body-on-the-beach case of “Somerton Man” has remained a mystery for 70 years. We go inside one of Australia’s greatest true crime mysteries. Airs Monday October 14, 8:00pm (AEDT), on ABCTV and iview.

www.abc.net.au

Should be based on the podcasts on Radio National linked on here researched and presented by Fiona Ellis Jones.

Catchy title and introduced by Stuart Littlemore, whose comments should be interesting.

 

[Gordon1552]

A quick post re the

Interested in who wrote these http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article240008576

GWENETH DOROTHY GRAHAM - The BODY in the BATH I Visit Darlinghurst - Smith's Weekly (Sydney, NSW : 1919 - 1950) - 27 Mar 1948

To what degree did Joseph Marshall, by his death, contribute in turn to the death of Gweneth Dorothy Graham? It was on May 19, 1945, that Joseph Haim Saul ...

nla.gov.au

The man in the mask, Smith's Weekly.
Who was the writer of this column?
Appears that he wrote 1,829 articles for Smith's Weekly over many decades. What was his real name, and what was he intimating in t these two articles? Why was he implying murder, when the coroner found suicide in both instances?

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

Not quite on this thread but related to the Marshall case.

Here's the Verse 23 from the Methuen 7th edition which seems to have been proven not to be a false imprint. From what I understand the contents of each edition are identical in terms of the verses they contain. Some carry adverts and some carry additional commentary.

Ah make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too Into the dust descend;
Dust into dust, and under dust to lie.
Sans wine, sans song, sans singer and-sans end.

However, in a Methuen 5th edition, that same verse is verse 24 and not 23. It seems that there is an additional verse somewhere. The 5th edition is a PDF and there are a few pages missing, here's quite a lengthy commentary upfront so you will need to get around pages 111 and 112 to see the relevant verses. I am not sure what effect this has, I had not heard it mentioned before but it may be a known issue nonetheless. If anyone has any information on the apparent difference I would certainly appreciate it if you could let me know.

Methuen 7th Edition:



Methuen 5th Edition:

 

[Redacted]

A quick post re the

Not quite on this thread but related to the Marshall case.

Here's the Verse 23 from the Methuen 7th edition which seems to have been proven not to be a false imprint. From what I understand the contents of each edition are identical in terms of the verses they contain. Some carry adverts and some carry additional commentary.

Ah make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too Into the dust descend;
Dust into dust, and under dust to lie.
Sans wine, sans song, sans singer and-sans end.

However, in a Methuen 5th edition, that same verse is verse 24 and not 23. It seems that there is an additional verse somewhere. The 5th edition is a PDF and there are a few pages missing, here's quite a lengthy commentary upfront so you will need to get around pages 111 and 112 to see the relevant verses. I am not sure what effect this has, I had not heard it mentioned before but it may be a known issue nonetheless. If anyone has any information on the apparent difference I would certainly appreciate it if you could let me know.

Methuen 7th Edition:



Methuen 5th Edition:

I don't know if this helps, but a new original manuscript was discovered in India in 1920s, which probably had additions added by Omar to his earlier work. I imagine that publishers would've been keen to get them into updated editions to flog more books.

29 Jan 1927 - MORE RUBAIYAT. - Tweed Daily (Murwillumbah, NSW.) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article190190420

16 Oct 1926 - PASSING NOTES - The Mercury (Hobart, Tas.) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article29462486

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Redacted]

Polio epidemic hits Royal North Shore Hospital whilst Jessica is training to become a nurse.

16 May 1946 - Dentist Dies 20 MORE PARALYSIS CASES REPORTED - Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners' Advocate (NSW) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article140619352

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Redacted]

The Somerton Man will also be explored on this week's episode of Australian Story, airing on Monday October 14, at 8pm.

 

[Redacted]

About the film

Australian International Pictures has announced the premiere of a new one hour documentary about South Australia’s famous Somerton Man “body on the beach” case which remains unsolved after 70 years…

missingpiecesmovie.com

The documentary reveals hitherto unknown information about the nurse and her “relationship” with Somerton Man, startling eyewitness accounts of the discovery of the body and new facts regarding Somerton Man’s possible connection with the South Australian racing industry.

Dr Milo Sprod who died in 1934 at his residence at Moseley St (on the corner of Pier St) Glenelg, was a well known racing identity.
BTW his medical practice was once at 25 Jetty Road, Glenelg (where the the book was found a car)

His widow, Dr Lica Sprod was the Aunty in law of MI5's Australian Station Chief, Robert Victor Hemblys Scales

 

[Gordon1552]

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.

An informative article and images that clearly show the effects and importance of lighting especially when photographing a nose, here's the link:

Here's the link to the article:

https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/35/5/524/239246