Unsolved Taman Shud Case

Redacted

Senior List
Sep 16, 2019
208
220
AFL Club
West Coast
So do you think it was unusual for Prosper to have 1500 pounds cash in hand, enough to buy a bungalow on the 27th November 1948, a date when SM was possibly staying in Adelaide?
...Snipped...
.
Prosper might've sponged the dough off his younger brother. 》

Gaston Chalmers Thomson, born 1920, 6ft 3 3/4 inch, fair hair, blue eyes, scar on wrist. Names his brother, Prosper as Next of Kin on his service record.
Lives in Bondi upon discharge from the Navy in 1945. Gets a pay out of a small fortune £235,10,0 for those days.
He sells up his share of a spray painting business in 1946 and moves from Vaucluse to Gosford allegedly.
Has a life insurance policy reissued in 1943 after losing it.
A Gaston Charles (SIC?) Thomson, Railway Guard reported as injured, (but not dead), in Gosford 1953 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article167379340
Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,745
2,869
AFL Club
Fremantle
Prosper might've sponged the dough off his younger brother. 》

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
Think there were about 4 brothers so his 250 pounds wouldn't stretch far, and Prosper didn't seem to be sharing his 1500 pounds.
 
Last edited:

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,745
2,869
AFL Club
Fremantle
Good stuff.
1. I did a series of posts on Clive's interviews over the past few years, we had discussed the questions in advance and the question regarding a second body was definitely put to him but he deflected it. I'll dig out the links to the relevant posts if you like or can just copy and paste.
2. I really don't know much about Prosper's financial situation, it could be that he had been given some sort of guarantee of funding to that amount? I find it curious that this was just 4 days prior to the SM incident.
3. Paul is a good man, old school. He maintains that the original bust was destroyed despite discussing a second bust with his director. He may have fragments and hair samples. Incidentally, some years ago I had a discussion about the bust with Derek and convinced him that there may just be DNA in the hairs that were visible in some of the images. Eventually, he was convinced :) Back to Paul, in one interview he confirmed that he didn't actually make the mold of the man's face, he used photographs from the Police to model it.
4. On the issue of Barbiturates, the hesitation, from what I read, was in the discussion of solid versions versus an injection. I would suggest that we should be mindful of the fact that numerous poisons and variations were being actively developed by all sides, it is quite possible that given we are dealing with an espionage case, then there is a distinct possibility that one of those poisons was used.
5. Not that familiar with the Magnason case so can't really comment on that.
6. PC Moss was also a good man, he did the best job he could in my view. He wasn't invincible and many cases I was involved with, errors of one sort or another were relatively common. So whilst Constable Moss searched the body, for example, he separately said that he searched the clothing. The latter would indicate that he carried out that search in the morgue. One statement he made was that he had not compared the part smoked cigarette with those in the packet. That was a critical error in my view. However, he volunteered the information which is a mark of the man he was. Notably, no one else took the trouble to compare the part smoked cigarette with the packet ones either. If they had done they may have found traces of a poison but we will never know that. It does leave it open as an option though some poisons work well as fumes. It is possible that the exhumation and subsequent examination of the body may just reveal more than the DNA, I would hope so.

Here's a link to what I call the store, I have a collection of a number of documents and images that may be of use, please feel free to access them. I have other documents that I need to sort out and when I do I will make them available if they're of interest:

This link is to a set of papers regarding KGB networks in Australia from 1944 to 1950, a bit disjointed in parts but there is a stack of useful information:
Reading Mr Lawson's description of how he made the plaster cast and because the body had been frozen as well as embalmed which meant sweating of the skin made it difficult for him, I have no doubt he used the actual body to make the cast. And the actual hairs from the head of SM were caught in the plaster.
Anything he says that is different now like suggesting he made it from photographs I think shows his dedication to keeping secrets if he was told to. "Loose lips sinks ships" was real during the war and after for many years. He would not be a person to question if he was told not to give information or access to the bust.

This is where it gets interesting with SA police. On one hand they say they need to keep the DNA samples from the hair found in the plaster because this is an open case. His DNA is only to be used to establish his identity, so why haven't SA police proceeded with the analysis or if they have why haven't they released their results? DNA will solve his identity in weeks.

Then on the other the AG says you can dig up the body but you have to go and raise the money for that yourself. It's still an open case so why don't SA police pay for the exhumation as permission is now given? Maybe it's not him buried there or the coffin is full or rocks??

There are about 20 pages of analysis from Dr's, pathologist, chemist, and an excellent summary from Sir Stanton Hicks on what killed the SM. Prf icks is in no doubt is wasn't barbiturates and gives reasons for this and also taking into account if there was a dose taken that didn't show in the toxicology it would still be impossible for the poison to be barbiturates and he lists the reasons why.

Prof Hicks is certain the poison that killed SM could have only been one of two types. These are both suppressed in the Inquest because both are from common plants and it was thought by naming them it could cause people to use them. From what I've read since the poisons were digitalis (foxgove) and oleander.

He names (Edit: He gives them numbers) these poisons despite knowing that both cause copious vomiting and sometimes soling of trousers. But it is the poison that explains the effects on the man's organs. I believe that's why Coroner Cleland says he can't say where the man died.

No matches meant someone else lit the cigarette and whether that person smoked it or SM, doesn't really matter but at lease one other person was there.
 
Last edited:

Mycroft

Debutant
Apr 5, 2016
120
57
Panama
Reading Mr Lawson's description of how he made the plaster cast and because the body had been frozen as well as embalmed which meant sweating of the skin made it difficult for him, I have no doubt he used the actual body to make the cast. And the actual hairs from the head of SM were caught in the plaster.
Anything he says that is different now like suggesting he made it from photographs I think shows his dedication to keeping secrets if he was told to. "Loose lips sinks ships" was real during the war and after for many years. He would not be a person to question if he was told not to give information or access to the bust.

This is where it gets interesting with SA police. On one hand they say they need to keep the DNA samples from the hair found in the plaster because this is an open case. His DNA is only to be used to establish his identity, so why haven't SA police proceeded with the analysis or if they have why haven't they released their results? DNA will solve his identity in weeks.

Then on the other the AG says you can dig up the body but you have to go and raise the money for that yourself. It's still an open case so why don't SA police pay for the exhumation as permission is now given? Maybe it's not him buried there or the coffin is full or rocks??

There are about 20 pages of analysis from Dr's, pathologist, chemist, and an excellent summary from Sir Stanton Hicks on what killed the SM. Prf icks is in no doubt is wasn't barbiturates and gives reasons for this and also taking into account if there was a dose taken that didn't show in the toxicology it would still be impossible for the poison to be barbiturates and he lists the reasons why.

Prof Hicks is certain the poison that killed SM could have only been one of two types. These are both suppressed in the Inquest because both are from common plants and it was thought by naming them it could cause people to use them. From what I've read since the poisons were digitalis (foxgove) and oleander.

He names these poisons despite knowing that both cause copious vomiting and sometimes soling of trousers. But it is the poison that explains the effects on the man's organs. I believe that's why Coroner Cleland says he can't say where the man died.

No matches meant someone else lit the cigarette and whether that person smoked it or SM, doesn't really matter but at lease one other person was there.
Swab samples were also taken from SM's plaster cast last year, thus not solely reliant on SM's hair this time. New testing methods developed at Flinder's University Forensics lab were used as well (but taken by FSSA for this). Due to the cloud of mystery and suspicion surrounding SM these past 70 years, it's right to validate 'what's in the box'. There's those said to be buried beneath SM as well. Were they also unclaimed & un-named. Did they die in institutional care, then claimed by the State... used as medical cadavers (past practice). Does SM's 'unknown man' headstone symbolises all that are buried there. While the ground's open they should all be DNA tested, and this could further assist scientific understanding in how long DNA material is viable... Serve as a comparison to human remains not embalmed, but kept in the same environment.

I also believe SAPOL should take responsibility for costs, rather than create a fund raising and media circus, whereby commercial interests pay and the public watch (as done with the Beaumont children's Castaloy dig fiasco). Had SAPOL kept the suitcase (DNA), SM's exhumation might have been avoided, thus the State pays costs for their mistake. If it's 'all about money', once all testing, scanning, filming etc. is done, SM can be cremated to save costs. SM's bust has been an exhibit at the Police Museum for years. Had he charged his audience, he could pay to get his name back.
 

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,745
2,869
AFL Club
Fremantle
Good stuff.
1. I did a series of posts on Clive's interviews over the past few years, we had discussed the questions in advance and the question regarding a second body was definitely put to him but he deflected it. I'll dig out the links to the relevant posts if you like or can just copy and paste.
2. I really don't know much about Prosper's financial situation, it could be that he had been given some sort of guarantee of funding to that amount? I find it curious that this was just 4 days prior to the SM incident.
3. Paul is a good man, old school. He maintains that the original bust was destroyed despite discussing a second bust with his director. He may have fragments and hair samples. Incidentally, some years ago I had a discussion about the bust with Derek and convinced him that there may just be DNA in the hairs that were visible in some of the images. Eventually, he was convinced :) Back to Paul, in one interview he confirmed that he didn't actually make the mold of the man's face, he used photographs from the Police to model it.
4. On the issue of Barbiturates, the hesitation, from what I read, was in the discussion of solid versions versus an injection. I would suggest that we should be mindful of the fact that numerous poisons and variations were being actively developed by all sides, it is quite possible that given we are dealing with an espionage case, then there is a distinct possibility that one of those poisons was used.
5. Not that familiar with the Magnason case so can't really comment on that.
6. PC Moss was also a good man, he did the best job he could in my view. He wasn't invincible and many cases I was involved with, errors of one sort or another were relatively common. So whilst Constable Moss searched the body, for example, he separately said that he searched the clothing. The latter would indicate that he carried out that search in the morgue. One statement he made was that he had not compared the part smoked cigarette with those in the packet. That was a critical error in my view. However, he volunteered the information which is a mark of the man he was. Notably, no one else took the trouble to compare the part smoked cigarette with the packet ones either. If they had done they may have found traces of a poison but we will never know that. It does leave it open as an option though some poisons work well as fumes. It is possible that the exhumation and subsequent examination of the body may just reveal more than the DNA, I would hope so.

Here's a link to what I call the store, I have a collection of a number of documents and images that may be of use, please feel free to access them. I have other documents that I need to sort out and when I do I will make them available if they're of interest:

This link is to a set of papers regarding KGB networks in Australia from 1944 to 1950, a bit disjointed in parts but there is a stack of useful information:
Mr Paul Lawson seemed thorough and very good at his job.

In his pages of his diary that you have is one mention of "Ring from Constable Dinham (sp?) re disposal of original body."

I've seen other notes from his Diary somewhere talking about the "second body" as well.
1571964718731.png


However there is mention of making a "wax dental". Did Mr Lawson make a wax dental impression of SM's very unique teeth? Remembering dental records were usually the only means of identifying unknown bodies at the time, I guess he did.

So where is this "wax dental"?
 

Gordon1552

Debutant
Oct 7, 2019
111
73
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Mr Paul Lawson seemed thorough and very good at his job.

In his pages of his diary that you have is one mention of "Ring from Constable Dinham (sp?) re disposal of original body."

I've seen other notes from his Diary somewhere talking about the "second body" as well.
View attachment 770076

However, there is mention of making a "wax dental". Did Mr Lawson make a wax dental impression of SM's very unique teeth? Remembering dental records were usually the only means of identifying unknown bodies at the time, I guess he did.

So where is this "wax dental"?
I suspect that the wax was a Dental Wax that he was using to get a mold of the ears. The plaster wasn't good enough. The type of plaster used was for a multiple-use Mold not a once-off. However, Paul maintains he didn't make any further busts from it and destroyed the original bust. The note I found in his diary made mention of 'disposing of the original body'. That made me think that there were two bodies. When Clive mentioned that to Paul, he was evasive and moved on from the topic. I can confirm that it was and probaly still is the practice to glue shut the deceased's mouth after the PM so there wouldn't have been an opportunity to make a dental impression. There is one at the Police Museum in Adelaide but not taken as a cast I understand, it was made from the dental chart.
 
Last edited:

Gordon1552

Debutant
Oct 7, 2019
111
73
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Reading Mr Lawson's description of how he made the plaster cast and because the body had been frozen as well as embalmed which meant sweating of the skin made it difficult for him, I have no doubt he used the actual body to make the cast. And the actual hairs from the head of SM were caught in the plaster.
Anything he says that is different now like suggesting he made it from photographs I think shows his dedication to keeping secrets if he was told to. "Loose lips sinks ships" was real during the war and after for many years. He would not be a person to question if he was told not to give information or access to the bust.

This is where it gets interesting with SA police. On one hand they say they need to keep the DNA samples from the hair found in the plaster because this is an open case. His DNA is only to be used to establish his identity, so why haven't SA police proceeded with the analysis or if they have why haven't they released their results? DNA will solve his identity in weeks.

Then on the other the AG says you can dig up the body but you have to go and raise the money for that yourself. It's still an open case so why don't SA police pay for the exhumation as permission is now given? Maybe it's not him buried there or the coffin is full or rocks??

There are about 20 pages of analysis from Dr's, pathologist, chemist, and an excellent summary from Sir Stanton Hicks on what killed the SM. Prf icks is in no doubt is wasn't barbiturates and gives reasons for this and also taking into account if there was a dose taken that didn't show in the toxicology it would still be impossible for the poison to be barbiturates and he lists the reasons why.

Prof Hicks is certain the poison that killed SM could have only been one of two types. These are both suppressed in the Inquest because both are from common plants and it was thought by naming them it could cause people to use them. From what I've read since the poisons were digitalis (foxgove) and oleander.

He names (Edit: He gives them numbers) these poisons despite knowing that both cause copious vomiting and sometimes soling of trousers. But it is the poison that explains the effects on the man's organs. I believe that's why Coroner Cleland says he can't say where the man died.

No matches meant someone else lit the cigarette and whether that person smoked it or SM, doesn't really matter but at least one other person was there.
The hairs weren't from the man's head as I understand it, they were from his back. There were photographs that showed them. The hair on the head of the body was plastered down flat with mortuary soap, lacquered down almost, there would not have been any loose hairs from the head because of that. I tend to believe him re the use of photographs, the photo we have of the man's face just prior to his burial is just a mess, no real features showing and nothing like the autopsy pics at all. When it comes to poisons, there would have been some varieties out there courtesy of various intelligence agencies that Stanford Hicks may not have known about so we would need to be mindful of that. With regards to the matches, Leane mentions the matches by brand in the inquest file and so does Cleland in his summing up. Constable Moss does not mention them, he went on to suggest he is very thorough and I am sure he was but even the most conscientious officers are capable of making a mistake. For example, he did not look for a used match near where the cigarette had been smoked, you would expect to find a used match there even if it was just below the surface but no mention of it. He acknowledged that he did not compare the partially smoked cigarette with those in the packet, that was a fairly critical error. He found nothing in the area around the man yet we later learn that had eaten a pastie or similar, that would have been in a paper bag but no bag was found and no mention of a waste bin although I am not certain there was one but it should have been mentioned as in 'there was no waste bin..' There may well be other reasons for no paper bag but it is an example of the sorts of things that can be missed. Moss specifically said that the area around the man was undisturbed so how was the cigarette lit by another person? All of this tends to suggest that items were missed albeit quite innocently. I have no doubt that Moss was a good and conscientious officer. I have attached the pre-burial facial photos fyi. Should add that I did an anysis and the facial metrics between the pre burial and the autopsy pics are different, they shouldn't have been. The nose, for example, is longe in the pre-burial photo. I also noticed that whilst almost all of the face has deteriorated in the pre burial shot, the ears remained unaffected. Attached grid comparison of the profile images
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Redacted

Senior List
Sep 16, 2019
208
220
AFL Club
West Coast
Picture of Robert Victor Hemblys Scales
Australian Women's Weekly 5/3/1949




Argus 21/2/1949 page 8

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,745
2,869
AFL Club
Fremantle
The hairs weren't from the man's head as I understand it, they were from his back. There were photographs that showed them. The hair on the head of the body was plastered down flat with mortuary soap, lacquered down almost, there would not have been any loose hairs from the head because of that. I tend to believe him re the use of photographs, the photo we have of the man's face just prior to his burial is just a mess, no real features showing and nothing like the autopsy pics at all. When it comes to poisons, there would have been some varieties out there courtesy of various intelligence agencies that Stanford Hicks may not have known about so we would need to be mindful of that. With regards to the matches, Leane mentions the matches by brand in the inquest file and so does Cleland in his summing up. Constable Moss does not mention them, he went on to suggest he is very thorough and I am sure he was but even the most conscientious officers are capable of making a mistake. For example, he did not look for a used match near where the cigarette had been smoked, you would expect to find a used match there even if it was just below the surface but no mention of it. He acknowledged that he did not compare the partially smoked cigarette with those in the packet, that was a fairly critical error. He found nothing in the area around the man yet we later learn that had eaten a pastie or similar, that would have been in a paper bag but no bag was found and no mention of a waste bin although I am not certain there was one but it should have been mentioned as in 'there was no waste bin..' There may well be other reasons for no paper bag but it is an example of the sorts of things that can be missed. Moss specifically said that the area around the man was undisturbed so how was the cigarette lit by another person? All of this tends to suggest that items were missed albeit quite innocently. I have no doubt that Moss was a good and conscientious officer. I have attached the pre-burial facial photos fyi. Should add that I did an anysis and the facial metrics between the pre burial and the autopsy pics are different, they shouldn't have been. The nose, for example, is longe in the pre-burial photo. I also noticed that whilst almost all of the face has deteriorated in the pre burial shot, the ears remained unaffected. Attached grid comparison of the profile images
Not sure where you have the idea that the hairs were from the man's back. With the hairs being straight and the length of them shown in the plaster he would have to be some sort of hairy orangutan for them to come from his back, which he wasn't.

While it doesn't matter where they came from for DNA analysis as long as they get a good sample, this is a very strange statement to make.

He was described to have had fair, gingery fair, mousy ginger and gingery blonde hair on his head in four separate police or Inquest statements. There is no doubt the hair on his head was fair or gingery blonde and this matches the samples left in the plaster.
1572055873095.png


The body or hair wan't washed down before Mr Lawson made the bust. He needed a dry body for the plaster and in his affidavit and subsequent interview with Littlemore in 1978, described how keeping the body dry became difficult as it had been frozen and started to thaw as he was completing the process. There is no chance he lied in his affidavit and evidence to the Inquest and somehow made his bust from photos.

Sir Cedric Stanton Hicks was a Professor of Human Physiology and Pharmacology at Adelaide University. He graduated from the University of Otago in Dunedin New Zealand, and after being awarded a Beit medical research fellowship in 1923, he travelled to England and studied at Trinity College, Cambridge. Under the fellowship, he also carried out research in Switzerland, Italy, Germany and the United States of America. He took up a fellowship and lectureship at the University of Adelaide in 1926. In January 1927 he was appointed to a new chair of physiology and pharmacology at the University, a post he held until 1957 (Wiki).

You could not have got a more knowledgeable or experienced person to make a judgement using the statements of various doctors, pharmacologist and chemist who gave evidence, to name the poison used to kill SM. It wasn't barbiturates, and I back him to have found (and coded) the family of poisons and which of those was the most likely.

Have to make a judgement call between P.C Moss and Det Sgt Leane and upon fully reading both and Coroner Cleland's effort to pressure Mr Lyon to change his statement, I believe PC Moss. He has no agenda that Cleland or Leane may have had and emphasises he "makes it his business to make an accurate record of what I found". It's quite easy to smooth sand over when somebody else leaves and SM had no sand on his shoes at all.

Moss would have searched the man's clothes at the scene to try to establish an identity with a wallet and also a more thorough examination of his clothes at the morgue. There were no matches found. Det Sgt Leane wasn't attached to the case until mid January 1949 and brought his matches with him IMO.

I believe they were trying to suggest the unknown man committed suicide as he lit his own cigarette (or Cleland suggesting to Lyon he had an unlit cigarette explaining no matches).

I'n not sure where you got the image of a face in your post that you say was devoid of features before he was buried. This is impossible after both embalming and freezing the body of SM.

This is an image of someone else and doesn't match the bust of look at all like the initial photo that was taken by the police photographer of the man he was told was found at the beach on 1st Dec 1948. Someone has Photoshoped another man's face onto the police photo and separately edited the bust image. Nose is completely different, mouth is different, especially top lip in side on view, forehead different, jaw is different without even having to look too close.

1572059813518.png


1572059777662.png


The so called 3 D image has been elongated to try to get the same nose length and then the chin and forehead are far to long. The nose has been shaved and is too thin and straight. I have done a line analysis matching the ears, but this is a fraud.
1572061033558.png


1572060845157.png
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gordon1552

Debutant
Oct 7, 2019
111
73
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Not sure where you have the idea that the hairs were from the man's back. With the hairs being straight and the length of them shown in the plaster he would have to be some sort of hairy orangutan for them to come from his back, which he wasn't.

While it doesn't matter where they came from for DNA analysis as long as they get a good sample, this is a very strange statement to make.

He was described to have had fair, gingery fair, mousy ginger and gingery blonde hair on his head in four separate police or Inquest statements. There is no doubt the hair on his head was fair or gingery blonde and this matches the samples left in the plaster.
View attachment 770559

The body or hair wan't washed down before Mr Lawson made the bust.
How do you know that? I would guarantee he washed it down to remove some of the slime that accumulates on a decomposing body.

He needed a dry body for the plaster and in his affidavit and subsequent interview with Littlemore in 1978, described how keeping the body dry became difficult as it had been frozen and started to thaw as he was completing the process. There is no chance he lied in his affidavit and evidence to the Inquest and somehow made his bust from photos. Yes he dried it and kept drying it off with the aid of a police officer. The suggestion is not that he lied. He washed the body.

Sir Cedric Stanton Hicks was a Professor of Human Physiology and Pharmacology at Adelaide University. He graduated from the University of Otago in Dunedin New Zealand, and after being awarded a Beit medical research fellowship in 1923, he travelled to England and studied at Trinity College, Cambridge. Under the fellowship, he also carried out research in Switzerland, Italy, Germany and the United States of America. He took up a fellowship and lectureship at the University of Adelaide in 1926. In January 1927 he was appointed to a new chair of physiology and pharmacology at the University, a post he held until 1957 (Wiki).

You could not have got a more knowledgeable or experienced person to make a judgement using the statements of various doctors, pharmacologist and chemist who gave evidence, to name the poison used to kill SM. It wasn't barbiturates, and I back him to have found (and coded) the family of poisons and which of those was the most likely.

What date was that? Dealing with the SM case we have to be aware that scientific knowledge is continuously being updated and that numerous poisons were constantly under development with research only becom8ing availabkle after findings may have been made.

Have to make a judgement call between P.C Moss and Det Sgt Leane and upon fully reading both and Coroner Cleland's effort to pressure Mr Lyon to change his statement, I believe PC Moss. He has no agenda that Cleland or Leane may have had and emphasises he "makes it his business to make an accurate record of what I found". It's quite easy to smooth sand over when somebody else leaves and SM had no sand on his shoes at all.

You have proof of that?

Moss would have searched the man's clothes at the scene to try to establish an identity with a wallet and also a more thorough examination of his clothes at the morgue. There were no matches found. Det Sgt Leane wasn't attached to the case until mid-January 1949 and brought his matches with him IMO.

I believe they were trying to suggest the unknown man committed suicide as he lit his own cigarette (or Cleland suggesting to Lyon he had an unlit cigarette explaining no matches).

I'n not sure where you got the image of a face in your post that you say was devoid of features before he was buried. This is impossible after both embalming and freezing the body of SM.
Page 153 of Gerry Feltus's book, attached.

This is an image of someone else and doesn't match the bust of look at all like the initial photo that was taken by the police photographer of the man he was told was found at the beach on 1st Dec 1948. Someone has Photoshoped another man's face onto the police photo and separately edited the bust image. Nose is completely different, mouth is different, especially top lip in side on view, forehead different, jaw is different without even having to look too close.

With respect, what you have done here is not a valid comparison. The image on the right has the head tilted backwards and the image on the left has the head tilted forwards. You will also find that Paul Lawson acknowledged that he had a lot of difficulty in shaping the ears hence the need to use dental wax to attempt to create the mold for them. Have you ever seen a body in advanced state of decomposition or one that has been lying in the morgue freezer for an extended period of time?

View attachment 770577

View attachment 770576

The so called 3 D image has been elongated to try to get the same nose length and then the chin and forehead are far to long. The nose has been shaved and is too thin and straight. I have done a line analysis matching the ears, but this is a fraud. It most definitely is an image from a 3D video taken by Adelaide University, what qualifies you to say it's a fraud?

Let me repeat, Paul Lawson told Clive in a recent interview that he had used the photographs from the Autopsy to create the bust. If you say not, then talk to Paul Lawson. I personally think you should reconsider your statements.



View attachment 770579

View attachment 770578
Let me help you a little, the hair on the back of the bust information came from the days of the University's FB page 'World Search For A rare copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam' 10 years or more ago and images that were distributed from there, they were the first images shown of the bust that showed hair. Perhaps check in with Professor Abbot about the location of the hair and the use of mortuary soap. Perhaps you can show just where the image that you show of hair is of? In Mr. Lawson's comments to Professor Abbot and to Clive, he had used soaps to flatten the hair on his head. Perhaps you should direct your questions to Professor Abbott or Paul Lawson on that. The photographs had not been elongated they came directly from the 3D video, I assume that you have watched it? If not perhaps you could spend a few minutes and then make comments: . The 3D video is a laser scan it effectively searches beneath the surface of the cast and reveals what's there.

Can you show us just where the images have been photoshopped? I have examined them very carefully and whilst some images have been touched up, specifically the Autopsy images, the pre-burial one of the full face hasn't been modified as far as I can ascertain, the profile image has.

The angles of your comparison images for the bust and pre-burial full face are not properly aligned, the image of his face is that published and held by the SA Police and you should be able to see that it is tilted backwards and the bust tilted forwards. You cannot compare one with the other under those circumstances. It seems to me that you have not read or seen the images from Gerry Feltus's book? You'll find that the images you have referred to as frauds are from there. Page 153 to be precise. (Attached).

PC Moss was a good man but he did make some basic scene of crime errors, the matches being one and there are others. Your statement that Detective Sergeant Leane lied is unfortunate, this was an experienced and capable man, the son of the previous Police Commissioner. Does that make him infallible? No, but it does make him a very careful Police officer who cannot be seen to make mistakes or break the rules. Sadly people do make allegations of this nature when they are completely unfounded and without any evidence. On that point, if you have any evidence to support that view either in this case or another that Detective Sergeant Leane was involved with then you should put it forward.

I would be interested to know what qualifies you to make the statements you have made. Are you an ex or serving Police Officer? Have you ever attended a Post Mortem or Autopsy?

I have entered comments in various places in your post.
 

Attachments

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,745
2,869
AFL Club
Fremantle
Let me help you a little, the hair on the back of the bust information came from the days of the University's FB page 'World Search For A rare copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam' 10 years or more ago and images that were distributed from there, they were the first images shown of the bust that showed hair. Perhaps check in with Professor Abbot about the location of the hair and the use of mortuary soap. Perhaps you can show just where the image that you show of hair is of? In Mr. Lawson's comments to Professor Abbot and to Clive, he had used soaps to flatten the hair on his head. Perhaps you should direct your questions to Professor Abbott or Paul Lawson on that. The photographs had not been elongated they came directly from the 3D video, I assume that you have watched it? If not perhaps you could spend a few minutes and then make comments: . The 3D video is a laser scan it effectively searches beneath the surface of the cast and reveals what's there.

Can you show us just where the images have been photoshopped? I have examined them very carefully and whilst some images have been touched up, specifically the Autopsy images, the pre-burial one of the full face hasn't been modified as far as I can ascertain, the profile image has.

The angles of your comparison images for the bust and pre-burial full face are not properly aligned, the image of his face is that published and held by the SA Police and you should be able to see that it is tilted backwards and the bust tilted forwards. You cannot compare one with the other under those circumstances. It seems to me that you have not read or seen the images from Gerry Feltus's book? You'll find that the images you have referred to as frauds are from there. Page 153 to be precise. (Attached).

PC Moss was a good man but he did make some basic scene of crime errors, the matches being one and there are others. Your statement that Detective Sergeant Leane lied is unfortunate, this was an experienced and capable man, the son of the previous Police Commissioner. Does that make him infallible? No, but it does make him a very careful Police officer who cannot be seen to make mistakes or break the rules. Sadly people do make allegations of this nature when they are completely unfounded and without any evidence. On that point, if you have any evidence to support that view either in this case or another that Detective Sergeant Leane was involved with then you should put it forward.

I would be interested to know what qualifies you to make the statements you have made. Are you an ex or serving Police Officer? Have you ever attended a Post Mortem or Autopsy?

I have entered comments in various places in your post.
Ok so now you're saying the hairs in the plaster come from the back of the head and not the back. That makes sense.

Maybe at cross purposes with hair being slicked down and mortuary soap not being used to make the plaster cast as in the sworn statement by Lawson.

Det sgt Keane went to work for ASIO according to Littlemore in out takes from his ABC documentary and played in the latest podcast. If he was asked to record that matches were found on the body when they weren't to suggest this was a suicide, then he would.

The photo said to be taken just before making the bust is 100% a different person or very poor image alteration. Like I said look at the nose which in the front on position has been shaved flatter, has no kink like the bust and the creases on the neck have disappared. Jaw is completely different.

The body was embalmed and frozen.

Making a 3d representation from scans is not going to be as accurate as looking and walking around at the bust but gives an idea of what he looked like.

My problem is someone taking an image from the 3d video and elongating it to make it fit the picture. It doesn't fit either one.
 

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,745
2,869
AFL Club
Fremantle
I am not critising Gary Feltus as he put an enormous amount of effort in finding Jo Thompson and was mindful of people's privacy unlike some.

However I have no doubt SM identity is known to those higher that SA police most of whom were only doing their job. Only answering to Federal AG and the group that became ASIO.

If disinformation was put out with the 0photos it was to keep the idenity secret.

DNA is the only way to cut through all the red herrings and false information that was put out. This should already have been done with new analysis of the hair DNA.

So why not? And what will exhumation bring?

I shudder to think it could be another red herring like the recent Beamont children dig was.
 

Gordon1552

Debutant
Oct 7, 2019
111
73
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Ok so now you're saying the hairs in the plaster come from the back of the head and not the back. That makes sense.

Maybe at cross purposes with hair being slicked down and mortuary soap not being used to make the plaster cast as in the sworn statement by Lawson.

Det sgt Keane went to work for ASIO according to Littlemore in out takes from his ABC documentary and played in the latest podcast. If he was asked to record that matches were found on the body when they weren't to suggest this was a suicide, then he would.

The photo said to be taken just before making the bust is 100% a different person or very poor image alteration. Like I said look at the nose which in the front on position has been shaved flatter, has no kink like the bust and the creases on the neck have disappared. Jaw is completely different.

The body was embalmed and frozen.

Making a 3d representation from scans is not going to be as accurate as looking and walking around at the bust but gives an idea of what he looked like.

My problem is someone taking an image from the 3d video and elongating it to make it fit the picture. It doesn't fit either one.
1. I took the stills from the 3D video, and you are suggesting that I elongated the image, I didn't and quite frankly I find that offensive and extremely rude.
2. I am saying that the hairs were showing on the back of his shoulders in the first images shown on the Universities facebook page around 10 years ago
3. There are no crossed purposes, Paul Lawson made it quite clear that he used mortuary soap to slick down the hair on the man's head, do you understand that?
4. Paul Lawson also clearly stated that he used the photographs to create the facial features of the man. If you have other evidence then where is it, and where did it come from?
5. Detective Sergeant Leane was recruited by ASIO after his involvement with the SM case, you suggest that because he later became an ASIO officer, along with other ex SA Police officers, he must in some way be corrupt? Your statements call his integrity into doubt, where is your evidence of that?
6. The images are of the body of the man stored under the name of the man found at Somerton. You need to understand that bodies decompose and the effects can totally change the appearance of the face. My comment is that I find it unusual that whilst the face has completely changed, the ears have remained exactly the same. I see no evidence of that photograph being manipulated or 'photoshopped' and I have examined it, you have made that claim and I would like you to show where the superimposition/lighting lines show up. Otherwise, we just have your words and no substance.

It is very wrong to bring people's integrity into doubt, this is still an active case and you are making public comments about people in it. If you want to question the evidence then that's your right but keep to the evidence and don't attack the people, they still have descendants and they may even be looking at your posts.
 

Redacted

Senior List
Sep 16, 2019
208
220
AFL Club
West Coast
Was the deceased found on Somerton Beach in Adelaide in December 1948 assassinated?

THere is probably only a very few men in Australia in 1948 who would've had the power authorise a killing and cover up. And only 1 agency that would've had the power to enforce withholding disclosure to the Australian Attorney General.

MI5

And here are pictures of the MI5 man in Australia during that time. He was known as MI5's mole hunter before coming to Australia. He had conducted at least one well known interrogation a few years before.

Are any of the witnesses at Somerton Beach alive today? Can they identify this man being seen in proximity to where the deceased was found? Or where the Rubiayat was found? Or being near the train station, or on the bus the preceding day? Or loitering in Moseley St Glenelg staking out the location of the abode of Jessica Harkness / Thomson?

Picture of Robert Victor Hemblys Scales
Australian Women's Weekly 5/3/1949




Argus 21/2/1949 page 8


I have proof that he was in Adelaide in late October 1948 and had visited Dr Lica Sprod, who incidently i can prove had intimate knowledge of the locations involved in the Somerton case a month later.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Redacted

Senior List
Sep 16, 2019
208
220
AFL Club
West Coast
Ok. Just a sec.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
Ok. Done it. Now to watch the pigeons fly.
Hopefully an English tabloid will pick up upon my posts and publicly press upon MI5 the obvious questions resulting from this.
Let's await a response.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,745
2,869
AFL Club
Fremantle
1. I took the stills from the 3D video, and you are suggesting that I elongated the image, I didn't and quite frankly I find that offensive and extremely rude.
2. I am saying that the hairs were showing on the back of his shoulders in the first images shown on the Universities facebook page around 10 years ago
3. There are no crossed purposes, Paul Lawson made it quite clear that he used mortuary soap to slick down the hair on the man's head, do you understand that?
4. Paul Lawson also clearly stated that he used the photographs to create the facial features of the man. If you have other evidence then where is it, and where did it come from?
5. Detective Sergeant Leane was recruited by ASIO after his involvement with the SM case, you suggest that because he later became an ASIO officer, along with other ex SA Police officers, he must in some way be corrupt? Your statements call his integrity into doubt, where is your evidence of that?
6. The images are of the body of the man stored under the name of the man found at Somerton. You need to understand that bodies decompose and the effects can totally change the appearance of the face. My comment is that I find it unusual that whilst the face has completely changed, the ears have remained exactly the same. I see no evidence of that photograph being manipulated or 'photoshopped' and I have examined it, you have made that claim and I would like you to show where the superimposition/lighting lines show up. Otherwise, we just have your words and no substance.

It is very wrong to bring people's integrity into doubt, this is still an active case and you are making public comments about people in it. If you want to question the evidence then that's your right but keep to the evidence and don't attack the people, they still have descendants and they may even be looking at your posts.
Not meaning to be rude and will put comparison images in another post, but the 3D is based on scans it will not be exactly like the bust. The proportions are wrong resulting in the elongation that occurs.

Using your exact image and the bust with the ears exactly the same size, the upper half of the head in particular is 25% longer. A distance from the top of ears to top of head 1.5 cm in the bust to 2.0 cm in the 3D scan. The nose is wrong being more pointed, has no flalr at the nostrils and is not as deep in the side on profile.

Not arguing about mortuary soap on the man's head. The hair on the model Mr Lawson made is exactly how it's described in the various police reports and by Mr Lawson in his affidavit.

Using Paul Lawson's sworn statement to the 1949 Inquest (and repeated by him in the Littlemore interview in 1978) where he clearly described the body not only being embalmed but frozen and the difficulties that made when he was making his mold from this body. There is no suggestion at all in this legal document that he made the man's bust from images.

If he's stated something different since, I'm not surprised as I've said before he's done this a few times for example with Prof Abbott (the man's feet) or with others. Making SM's bust from photographs isn't what he swears in his affidavit and can only be a misunderstanding in either what he means, trying to please whoever the person he's talking to or misdirect.

I am not saying any other SA police officer that worked on the SM case became an ASIO officer except Det SGt Leane. I am saying that he may have got this position because he was privy to some information that ASIO had on the man and he may have some part in trying to keep the man's identity a secret or the cause of death a secret at the time.

From Kate Thompson's interview I believe that Jo Harkness knew the identity and she told Kate that the identity was known to those higher up that the SA police. Working on behalf of ASIO (and it precursor before being formed in March 1949) you would not answer to authority in SA, only to the Federal AG and PM.

I'd read the inquest documents thoroughly and came to the conclusion that Det Sgt Leane added the matches to evidence saying they were found on the body when he examined the clothing after 14th Jan 1949. I believe you're suggesting that PC Moss missed finding the box of matches. I don't believe he could have or did for reasons I previously given. The possible conclusion for having matches is that he lit his own cigarette, was by himself and committed suicide. I don't believe other evidence confirmed suicide either.

The body was embalmed and frozen. In my undergraduate years my colleagues and I spent a year working with corpses donated for science. The same cadaver per person was accessed and worked on every week for a year. I can guarantee an embalmed corpse does not change the way you say caused the changes in the two photos, and if there was questions about the embalming in December 1948 SM's cadaver was also frozen for 6 months guaranteeing no changes.
 

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,745
2,869
AFL Club
Fremantle
1572147001272.png


Bust of SM compared to 3D image of the bust supplied by Gordon. 3D image has not been changed in any way. Both images have the ears 1.5 cm long and 0.9 cm at the widest part.

Distance from the top of ear to the top of head is 1.5 cm in the bust.
Distance from the top of ear to the top of head is 2.0 cm in the 3D scan.

From point of hair line to top of nose = 1.6 cm on bust.
From point of hair line to top of nose = 2.0 cm on 3D image
 

Gordon1552

Debutant
Oct 7, 2019
111
73
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Not meaning to be rude and will put comparison images in another post, but the 3D is based on scans it will not be exactly like the bust. The proportions are wrong resulting in the elongation that occurs.

Using your exact image and the bust with the ears exactly the same size, the upper half of the head in particular is 25% longer. A distance from the top of ears to top of head 1.5 cm in the bust to 2.0 cm in the 3D scan. The nose is wrong being more pointed, has no flalr at the nostrils and is not as deep in the side on profile.

Not arguing about mortuary soap on the man's head. The hair on the model Mr Lawson made is exactly how it's described in the various police reports and by Mr Lawson in his affidavit.

Using Paul Lawson's sworn statement to the 1949 Inquest (and repeated by him in the Littlemore interview in 1978) where he clearly described the body not only being embalmed but frozen and the difficulties that made when he was making his mold from this body. There is no suggestion at all in this legal document that he made the man's bust from images.

If he's stated something different since, I'm not surprised as I've said before he's done this a few times for example with Prof Abbott (the man's feet) or with others. Making SM's bust from photographs isn't what he swears in his affidavit and can only be a misunderstanding in either what he means, trying to please whoever the person he's talking to or misdirect.

I am not saying any other SA police officer that worked on the SM case became an ASIO officer except Det SGt Leane. I am saying that he may have got this position because he was privy to some information that ASIO had on the man and he may have some part in trying to keep the man's identity a secret or the cause of death a secret at the time.

From Kate Thompson's interview I believe that Jo Harkness knew the identity and she told Kate that the identity was known to those higher up that the SA police. Working on behalf of ASIO (and it precursor before being formed in March 1949) you would not answer to authority in SA, only to the Federal AG and PM.

I'd read the inquest documents thoroughly and came to the conclusion that Det Sgt Leane added the matches to evidence saying they were found on the body when he examined the clothing after 14th Jan 1949. I believe you're suggesting that PC Moss missed finding the box of matches. I don't believe he could have or did for reasons I previously given. The possible conclusion for having matches is that he lit his own cigarette, was by himself and committed suicide. I don't believe other evidence confirmed suicide either.

The body was embalmed and frozen. In my undergraduate years my colleagues and I spent a year working with corpses donated for science. The same cadaver per person was accessed and worked on every week for a year. I can guarantee an embalmed corpse does not change the way you say caused the changes in the two photos, and if there was questions about the embalming in December 1948 SM's cadaver was also frozen for 6 months guaranteeing no changes.
I can guarantee you the opposite in regards to the way a deceased person's body deteriorates. To get a better feel for it, you need to ask questions of the reliability of the refrigeration unit and power supply during the time SM was held at the mortuary. I think you'll find there were regular interruptions and downtime in SA through 48/49. It's not as straightforward as it might appear.

Here's another video clip of the actual laser scan,:

The method used to embalm SM was a new one to the funeral director concerned, he apparently later admitted he didn't get it quite right. I have had my doubts about images and fought to get an acknowledgment that the post mortem pics had been altered, it is now generally agreed that is the case. Lawrence Elliot was the embalmer and he had just returned from an overseas trip studying the new method, SM was apparently his first attempt.

With regards to the photographs, I think the best way to resolve the differences is to measure the side profile images of both the PM and the pre-burial man.

I personally believe that there are differences but not in the bust image. The body from whom the cast was taken was not necessarily the body of the Somerton Man.

With regards to the comparisons, you have made I respectfully suggest that you look at the dimensions of the head and bust overall, Paul Lawson has stated on a number of occasions that he had great difficulty with organising the shaping and placement of the ears. To compare the images based on the ears is therefore not a good idea.

The bust scan and the bust photographs are of the same overall dimensions, what you see is the results of the laser scan which is realistically beneath the surface and then the outer photo of the bust. There is a difficulty with dimensions and images without firm datum points.

For the record my experience with deceased persons comes from having dealt with 20 or more sudden deaths directly and having attended more than 18 PMs, three of these were murder victims. I have made a study of approximately 70 + murders. The real-life investigation is not a textbook version, it is filled with side issues and 'noise'. The power outages in SA whilst the man was in the 'freezer' is a classic example. The exceptions prove the rule.

The comparison image of the pre-burial versus Autopsy image was an interesting exercise, I did this in 2014 trying to chase down what appeared to be significant differences between the two sets of images. The result was as you see it, significant differences. However, the pre-burial image had been manually overhauled for want of better term. If you look closely you can see the way that colours have been 'spread' over the surface. This would have been done well ahead of photoshop days, photographers even in those times were masters of deception it seems. No reflection on Jimm Durham by the way, I am not at all sure that this was his work.

I am not about to further this discussion, I have spent a great deal of time, more than 10 years, reviewing and understanding the nature of the problems and have reached what I think are a useful set of conclusions based on my understanding of the case and my own direct experiences. We all have something to learn and I am not an exception, if I am proven wrong on any point and the evidence is produced then I will, of course, accept that.

Another but not the only other, Police Officer to be recruited by ASIO was Ray Whitrod. That name should ring bells for you.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Redacted

Senior List
Sep 16, 2019
208
220
AFL Club
West Coast
So much evidence. Yet somethings are missing.

If he ate a pasty, there'd be crumbs all over his clothing. If he bought a pasty, and took it away from a shop, there'd also be crumbs in his pocket.

There are no crumbs. These are not the clothes that he was wearing, when he purchased, transported and ate the pastie.

Pasties are made with flakey pastry dough.
Dough that is made with flour and oil. Pastry crumbs stick to clothing like no tomorrow.

Then there are the contents of a pastie. Diced vegetables and meat. Contents that come apart and often land upon your clothing.

There is no evidence of his consumption of what was found in his stomach.

Because the clothes he were found in are not the clothes that he was wearing when he ate it.


Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 

Redacted

Senior List
Sep 16, 2019
208
220
AFL Club
West Coast
Not sure where you have the idea that the hairs were from the man's back. With the hairs being straight and the length of them shown in the plaster he would have to be some sort of hairy orangutan for them to come from his back, which he wasn't.

While it doesn't matter where they came from for DNA analysis as long as they get a good sample, this is a very strange statement to make.

He was described to have had fair, gingery fair, mousy ginger and gingery blonde hair on his head in four separate police or Inquest statements. There is no doubt the hair on his head was fair or gingery blonde and this matches the samples left in the plaster.
View attachment 770559

The body or hair wan't washed down before Mr Lawson made the bust. He needed a dry body for the plaster and in his affidavit and subsequent interview with Littlemore in 1978, described how keeping the body dry became difficult as it had been frozen and started to thaw as he was completing the process. There is no chance he lied in his affidavit and evidence to the Inquest and somehow made his bust from photos.

Sir Cedric Stanton Hicks was a Professor of Human Physiology and Pharmacology at Adelaide University. He graduated from the University of Otago in Dunedin New Zealand, and after being awarded a Beit medical research fellowship in 1923, he travelled to England and studied at Trinity College, Cambridge. Under the fellowship, he also carried out research in Switzerland, Italy, Germany and the United States of America. He took up a fellowship and lectureship at the University of Adelaide in 1926. In January 1927 he was appointed to a new chair of physiology and pharmacology at the University, a post he held until 1957 (Wiki).

You could not have got a more knowledgeable or experienced person to make a judgement using the statements of various doctors, pharmacologist and chemist who gave evidence, to name the poison used to kill SM. It wasn't barbiturates, and I back him to have found (and coded) the family of poisons and which of those was the most likely.

Have to make a judgement call between P.C Moss and Det Sgt Leane and upon fully reading both and Coroner Cleland's effort to pressure Mr Lyon to change his statement, I believe PC Moss. He has no agenda that Cleland or Leane may have had and emphasises he "makes it his business to make an accurate record of what I found". It's quite easy to smooth sand over when somebody else leaves and SM had no sand on his shoes at all.

Moss would have searched the man's clothes at the scene to try to establish an identity with a wallet and also a more thorough examination of his clothes at the morgue. There were no matches found. Det Sgt Leane wasn't attached to the case until mid January 1949 and brought his matches with him IMO.

I believe they were trying to suggest the unknown man committed suicide as he lit his own cigarette (or Cleland suggesting to Lyon he had an unlit cigarette explaining no matches).

I'n not sure where you got the image of a face in your post that you say was devoid of features before he was buried. This is impossible after both embalming and freezing the body of SM.

This is an image of someone else and doesn't match the bust of look at all like the initial photo that was taken by the police photographer of the man he was told was found at the beach on 1st Dec 1948. Someone has Photoshoped another man's face onto the police photo and separately edited the bust image. Nose is completely different, mouth is different, especially top lip in side on view, forehead different, jaw is different without even having to look too close.

View attachment 770577

View attachment 770576

The so called 3 D image has been elongated to try to get the same nose length and then the chin and forehead are far to long. The nose has been shaved and is too thin and straight. I have done a line analysis matching the ears, but this is a fraud.
View attachment 770579

View attachment 770578
Not until the profile view that I realised that he was born with Pierre Robin Syndrome.
Underdeveloped lowere jaw is a dead giveaway.
How big was the cleft in the roof of his mouth? He might've had severe sleep apnea and snore quite loudly.
He might've had to eat only soft foods or even liquids depending upon the size of the cleft in his upper palate

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 

Kinbru

Draftee
Oct 27, 2019
10
19
Norway
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Hi.

Is this the right thread to post about the SM code? I found something interesting a few days ago that I think it´s worth checking out. I just don´t know where to start.

SomertonManCode - FULL RES.jpg

There’s been a lot of talk about the "X" above the last 'O' in the code, and if this "X" is significant to the code or not. If you switch the letters around in the third row, MLIABOX, it spells MAILBOX. This is quite interesting, and it raises some questions.


Can you switch other letters around?

Did he mail something?

Did he make a drop near a mailbox?

In Australia in the 1940´s was it normal to say mailboxes or PO. boxes?

Was he supposed to pick something up?

Is the “X” also a point on a map?



It also looks like the second part, AIAQC stands on its own.


What does “AIA” stand for?


What does “QC” stand for?




PS: If I´m really slow with responding or I´m not replying correctly in English, its because English isn’t my first language.
 

Top Bottom