Unsolved Taman Shud Case - The Somerton Man

[Kurve]

Is there a woman factoring into this somewhere? Foxglove (digitalis) boiled into a tea can be fatal, not so many around now but they featured in old English cottage gardens.

I personally think he probably died on the beach, guided there sick perhaps but to carry a man in dead weight that size onto and over the sand isn't easy. Anyhoo, I'll leave you all to it.

 

[BlueE]

I believe there is a major spelling error in the coroner's report. There is reference to glucoside and I believe the correct reference should by glycoside.

You've picked up a really good point Beat. From the explanation and the classification that matches what Prof Stanton Hicks was explaining, it should have been glycoside.

I assumed it was glycoside in my post giving possible plant glycosides he indicated as the most likely poison. The name wasn't said in the Inquest and Prof Hicks did not check the Exhibi as he did with changes and initially mistakes in typing of his statement.

Prof Hicks said "The first word on the exhibit is the name of the group, and the other words are members of the group." Paper marked Exhibit C. 18. Of the members of the group, I would say that there are several variants of number 1, and I had in mind more particularly number 2., which be extremely toxic in relatively small dose, I mean even in an oral dose, and would be completely missed by any of the tests applied and would in fact be extremely difficult if not impossible to identify even if it had been suspected in the first instance. I mean it would not be identifiable by ordinary chemical tests. Such a substance would be quite easily procurable by the ordinary individual, I do not think even special circumstances would be required.

I also posted Exhibit 18 and when I went to check it, it says glucoside, with two unintelligible groups that went with it. It's unlikely Prof Hicks would mistake glucosdes for glycosides or the two main groups, so its possible they were written down by someone else and mis spelt.


Below is a copy of page 44 of the Inquest with Sir Cedric Stanton Hicks corrections and signature in his handwriting. Is this the same handwriting as Exhibit C 18 and if not was it transcribed incorrectly from medical names that that Prof Hicks gave?

 

[Kurve]

Is there a woman factoring into this somewhere? Foxglove (digitalis) boiled into a tea can be fatal, not so many around now but they featured in old English cottage gardens.

I personally think he probably died on the beach, guided there sick perhaps but to carry a man in dead weight that size onto and over the sand isn't easy. Anyhoo, I'll leave you all to it.

ps. Foxglove would like Adelaide's weather better than oleander. They go back into the ground in clumps through winter, in December when Somerton Man was found they were in full bloom.

 

[Redacted]

ps. Foxglove would like Adelaide's weather better than oleander. They go back into the ground in clumps through winter, in December when Somerton Man was found they were in full bloom.

Might not even have to make it into a tea.if only my nan was still alive. She used to grow all manner of toxic plants. She loved the flowers, but she researched how to handle them first. Her favourite one was the devils trumpet. Told me that even touching the plant could kill you. She even told me not to eat the almond kernals, and not to pick the unripe mulberries. The house was surrounded by cape lilacs, oleanders. She told me to watch her chooks. "If they didn't touch it, neither should you". Taught me that rose petals and nastrium leaves make a great salad. She had a laugh about the old Italian chap a few doors down. He grew these lovely purple flowers from the seeds off a bun along his front fence. She'd have a chuckle and told us he's growing an opium crop. Then proceeded to tell us how the Irish used to stew the heads and drink the tea.


Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Redacted]

There were opium poppies in every second house where I lived through primary school. In their front gardens. Mum says 'See those flowers there? It's medicine, don't touch them." But why??!! "They're opium poppies don't touch them and do not repeat what i said!". We were milking the poppies just to see what was in them soon as her back was turned.

It was struggleville and most were immigrants, everyone's yard was full of veggie patches and DIY medicines. Now people see a poppy they're ringing the police.

I wondered before, if the scratches on the deceased hands could be how he was poisoned. There are plants like Monkshood that will kill if you even touch them, but I'm inclined to put this method of being poisoned lower down the list of probabilities, simply because I'd expect to see a severe skin reaction around the scratches, especially as such highly toxic plants would cause severe skin irritation even without breaking the skin.
However, I remember a pommy TV show where some old codger bought some daffodil flower bulbs, thinking that they where onions, cooked them and dropped dead a couple of hours after eating them.

17 plants that could kill you https://www.mnn.com/your-home/organ...s/13-plants-that-could-kill-you/deadly-plants
Nanna's Devil's trumpet is called an Angel's trumpet and her cape lilacs are called white cedars in this article.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

 

[Gordon1552]

The only difference between the 1949 Inquest and the 1958 Inquest is the death certificate (which is the signed document by Coroner Cleland which you've posted) and some of the Exhibits were attached.

Otherwise what Coroner Cleland is the same in his statement summing up the Inquest. It's surprising a death certificate was issued in 1949 and this was needed for records. It shouldn't hold as much or any weight compared to the evidence from the Inquest and it shouldn't detract from the evidence presented at the Inquest.

However by 1958 he changes what he thought was the cause of death, and where death occurred. This may simply be that it took too much to explain so putting unknown cause of death may gloss over all the technicality's.

He can't say where he died so instead on the death cert. he says died on the shores of Somerton beach instead of found there. Again is this just simplifying when he couldn't sure where he died or he's just slipped a few changes in words which give another meaning?

It shouldn't hold as much or any weight compared to the evidence from the Inquest and it shouldn't detract from the evidence presented at the Inquest.

This legal document is a formal one it was certificated by a very professional man of undoubted reputation. What he has done is to review the earlier evidence and for reasons best known to him and possibly a court reporter, he changed his view significantly. I think he chose his words very carefully. If anything it holds more weight as it follows a lengthy period of 9 years during which time no doubt more information came his way. They are Cleland's last words on the subject that I am aware of and they and he should be treated with due respect.

 

[Gordon1552]

Thanks. Yeah, I would be very interested. It reminds me of something that my dad told me about 1974, and rumours going around Pearce when the recall to duty came out about cyclone Tracy, and many of the men thought it was fake and a way of getting them out of the way whilst a coup was staged, such that the general rumour mill amongst enlisted men were that there were known commissioned officers conspiring to overthrow the democratically elected government. Dad reeled off a few names and said something about the Navy not supporting them, so they'd find an excuse to send the Navy to Darwin. So when he got the recall for cyclone Tracy, he actually thought the coup was on.
I heard of De Groot, but didn't give it much thought that an underground network would survive the purge of Fascists and Nazi sympathisers during WW2.
Send me anything useful to start on with those involved in the Somerton Investigation

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

Here are the names of the heads of various State operations:
NSW: Commander Long RAN, George Proud, Major General Windeyer
Victoria: Brigadier Charles Spry, Sir Edmund Herring
Queensland: Major General Allan Steele
South Australia: Brigadier Wills (G&R Wills family)

Blamey was believed to be the power behind the movement which was also sometimes known as 'The White Guard' after the 1920s Victorian
organisation. Major General Simpson was also believed to be in the top echelon of the Association according to a top-secret report handed to Doc Evatt, wise choice?

Adelaide is of course of specific interest and I would think any connection between Wills and other Intelligence identities in Adelaide would be worth following up as would any connection with any other senior people associated with the SM case. As you will see it has a virtual who's who of high ranking military officers representing each state. If any organisation had the capability to sway outcomes this would be it.

Happy reading! Please let me know how it goes and keep in touch.

 

[BlueE]

This legal document is a formal one it was certificated by a very professional man of undoubted reputation. What he has done is to review the earlier evidence and for reasons best known to him and possibly a court reporter, he changed his view significantly. I think he chose his words very carefully. If anything it holds more weight as it follows a lengthy period of 9 years during which time no doubt more information came his way. They are Cleland's last words on the subject that I am aware of and they and he should be treated with due respect.

Or no death certificate was issued from the original Inquest and records dictated there needed to be one.

The Inquest was opened and shut with no new information except for issuing this certificate. He rubber stamped the document leaving it as generic as possible. Either that or he was influenced by being in the Communist Party to deliver a generic outcome on the death certificate?

Doesn't match his summing up of the Inquest in 1949 or 1958 with place of death which was unknown, cause of death agreeing with Sir Stanton Hicks choice of poison and he couldn't say if he poison was administered by himself or another person.

Anyone reading all the medical evidence given at the Inquest would agree with Coroner Clelands summing up of eh evidence at the Inquest. There are few enough facts with this case that I believe you should use the few that have been established by experts at the time.

 

[BlueE]

Long and involved story. The Association was an active anti-communist movement, it was headed up, though unofficially, by Field Marshall Blamey. It had organisations in each state headed mostly py ex-military people of colonel rank or above. In the mid to late 40s, it boasted a membership of 130,000 men, they had small arms and machine guns and stood ready. It is believed that the RSL and its equivalent in those days were the troops on the ground. There were cells in each state and no written records were kept, all verbal apart from the use of newspaper ads to communicate outcomes of various missions. They had their own intelligence wing. In those days, Australia came close to a civil war. Many of the Association's members were at very senior levels of the Police in each state, ex-Commissioner Leane amongst them. It is all to be found in various texts/books/articles and I am happy to share them with you if you have an interest.

You have a very good understanding of the cold war situation against the Communists that existed in Australia and many Western countries post WW2. So if you want to expand your thinking, I'm posing serious questions about Elliot Frank Johnston.

How did this man who was a card carrying communist party organisor in Adelaide, someone who was under ASIO (or it's predecessor) surveillance and even now has only 70 documents out of 300 available to view, thrive in his business and become a QC and SA Supreme Court judge?

An acquaintance of his who knew him in 1948 has written a letter suggesting he was involved in the death of SM (among other accusations) using plant poison. This person also allege Elliot was given 50,000 pounds in 1949 which he bought a flash car and big house. In an oral interview Johnston talks abut being a Communist organisor for much of the 50's and not working again as a lawyer until 1957. He also travelled to different countries around the world, including Russia, China, India and Korea during this time.

Was Elliot Johnston driving a flash car, and what was it?
Was this money he was alleged to be given connected to the SM case? Hush money for keeping a secret about SM identity or his purpose in Adelaide?
Did EJ have information only known to the top at ASIO that could compromise Australia or Allies in USA (CIA) or MI5 that gave him a free ride even though he was a card carrying communist?

 

[Gordon1552]

Or no death certificate was issued from the original Inquest and records dictated there needed to be one.

The Inquest was opened and shut with no new information except for issuing this certificate. He rubber stamped the document leaving it as generic as possible. Either that or he was influenced by being in the Communist Party to deliver a generic outcome on the death certificate?

Doesn't match his summing up of the Inquest in 1949 or 1958 with place of death which was unknown, cause of death agreeing with Sir Stanton Hicks choice of poison and he couldn't say if he poison was administered by himself or another person.

Anyone reading all the medical evidence given at the Inquest would agree with Coroner Clelands summing up of eh evidence at the Inquest. There are few enough facts with this case that I believe you should use the few that have been established by experts at the time.

I think he chose his words very carefully otherwise he would just have made a notation without changing significantly his original finding. I would be as close to certain as I can be that this 1958 finding is the correct one and it was meant to replace the 49 version. There can be no other logical explanation for it. I cannot agree that it was an attempt to gloss over to me that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If you have some materials to substantiate what you suggest then perhaps you could share that information?

Take the first reference to the shore at Somerton, that 'could' mean a reference to the dugouts along the beach or it could be referring to one of a number of beach huts dotted along the beach from Brighton to the Pat, concentrations of these huts being at the extremities. Photographs are scarce for the intermediate beaches, I have one which 'might' show a small hut very close to Somerton. Will dig that out, the only way I could plot it was by a very rough trig exercise lining up with the end of Glenelg Pier in view and a distant point on the shoreline.

 

[Beatnicked]

You've picked up a really good point Beat. From the explanation and the classification that matches what Prof Stanton Hicks was explaining, it should have been glycoside.

I assumed it was glycoside in my post giving possible plant glycosides he indicated as the most likely poison. The name wasn't said in the Inquest and Prof Hicks did not check the Exhibi as he did with changes and initially mistakes in typing of his statement.

Prof Hicks said "The first word on the exhibit is the name of the group, and the other words are members of the group." Paper marked Exhibit C. 18. Of the members of the group, I would say that there are several variants of number 1, and I had in mind more particularly number 2., which be extremely toxic in relatively small dose, I mean even in an oral dose, and would be completely missed by any of the tests applied and would in fact be extremely difficult if not impossible to identify even if it had been suspected in the first instance. I mean it would not be identifiable by ordinary chemical tests. Such a substance would be quite easily procurable by the ordinary individual, I do not think even special circumstances would be required.

I also posted Exhibit 18 and when I went to check it, it says glucoside, with two unintelligible groups that went with it. It's unlikely Prof Hicks would mistake glucosdes for glycosides or the two main groups, so its possible they were written down by someone else and mis spelt.

View attachment 775561
Below is a copy of page 44 of the Inquest with Sir Cedric Stanton Hicks corrections and signature in his handwriting. Is this the same handwriting as Exhibit C 18 and if not was it transcribed incorrectly from medical names that that Prof Hicks gave?
View attachment 775566

Thanks blue.

Maybe the Coroner dictated his report into either a tape recording machine to be typed up or to a steganographer and the word was then mis-spelt.

 

[Beatnicked]

There are case studies online about accidental digitoxin poisoning where people mistook foxglove leaves for kale leaves.

Interesting info in this link under the clinical features of poisoning heading. On would think if the victim was subjected to this type of poisoning he would have vomitted or suffered severe diarrhoea. I have not read anywhere where such evidence was present.

Pharmacological treatment of cardiac glycoside poisoning

Cardiac glycosides are an important cause of poisoning, reflecting their widespread clinical usage and presence in natural sources. Poisoning can manifest as varying degrees of toxicity. Predominant clinical features include gastrointestinal signs, bradycardia ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I still wonder if the name on the back of the tie was Keanje not Keane.

 

[BlueE]

Thanks blue.

Maybe the Coroner dictated his report into either a tape recording machine to be typed up or to a steganographer and the word was then mis-spelt.

That's possibly true as there were many mistakes Prof Hicks personally corrected on his statement, but the Exhibits didn't seem to be looked at.

Unfortunately then Coroner Cleland then repeats the mistake by talking abut glucosides and not glygosices.

 

[BlueE]

I think he chose his words very carefully otherwise he would just have made a notation without changing significantly his original finding. I would be as close to certain as I can be that this 1958 finding is the correct one and it was meant to replace the 49 version. There can be no other logical explanation for it. I cannot agree that it was an attempt to gloss over to me that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If you have some materials to substantiate what you suggest then perhaps you could share that information?

Take the first reference to the shore at Somerton, that 'could' mean a reference to the dugouts along the beach or it could be referring to one of a number of beach huts dotted along the beach from Brighton to the Pat, concentrations of these huts being at the extremities. Photographs are scarce for the intermediate beaches, I have one which 'might' show a small hut very close to Somerton. Will dig that out, the only way I could plot it was by a very rough trig exercise lining up with the end of Glenelg Pier in view and a distant point on the shoreline.

If he had wanted to change his statement he could have, but the his summarising statement in the 1958 Inquest is exactly the same as the 1949. Except all signatures and initials were removed from the 1958 Inquest and some of the Exhibits were attached. Interesting that Exhibit C1 was a packet containing objects found on SM when he was discovered.

Exhibit C.1

A packet containing the following items:

a) A railway ticket to Henley Beach

b) A tramway bus ticket.

c) Packet of cigarettes.

d) Two combs.

e) Chewing gum.

f) A slip of paper with the words “Taman Shad” [sic].

However, looks like they just opened the Inquest again to issue a death certificate, which they seemed to overlook in 1949.

He only had a few lines to fill out in the death certificate, and he is very generic with what he writes which contradict his own Inquest statement and the evidence.

However you can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. Judgement call and I'm not sure if it helps to find his identity or not.

 

[Gordon1552]

Thanks blue.

Maybe the Coroner dictated his report into either a tape recording machine to be typed up or to a steganographer and the word was then mis-spelt.

I think you'll find it was taken by a stenographer, 200 words a minute at high accuracy. It's effectively a form of shorthand, found this image below that shows the output. It would be very easy to misspell or transcribe wrongly.

 

[Gordon1552]

If he had wanted to change his statement he could have, but the his summarising statement in the 1958 Inquest is exactly the same as the 1949. Except all signatures and initials were removed from the 1958 Inquest and some of the Exhibits were attached. Interesting that Exhibit C1 was a packet containing objects found on SM when he was discovered.

Exhibit C.1

A packet containing the following items:

a) A railway ticket to Henley Beach

b) A tramway bus ticket.

c) Packet of cigarettes.

d) Two combs.

e) Chewing gum.

f) A slip of paper with the words “Taman Shad” [sic].

However, looks like they just opened the Inquest again to issue a death certificate, which they seemed to overlook in 1949.

He only had a few lines to fill out in the death certificate, and he is very generic with what he writes which contradict his own Inquest statement and the evidence.

However you can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. Judgement call and I'm not sure if it helps to find his identity or not.

It's not so much about finding an identity in this instance, it's about understanding why Cleland made such a significant change to his findings. There would be a reason and maybe more than one. There was doubt raised by Stanton Hicks in his evidence, he wasn't absolutely certain if the drugs he had written down actually did the job.

It would be good to know whether this was about the time that Cleland had his conversation with Paul Lawson mentioning the injection. will follow that up and ask him.

By finding these details and either confirming or canceling their part we get as complete a picture as possible and that is what investigation is about. Rarely is the information 100% accurate but at least you know when making any assumptions you have used the 'best available' data.

 

[Gordon1552]

Or no death certificate was issued from the original Inquest and records dictated there needed to be one.

The Inquest was opened and shut with no new information except for issuing this certificate. He rubber stamped the document leaving it as generic as possible. Either that or he was influenced by being in the Communist Party to deliver a generic outcome on the death certificate?

Doesn't match his summing up of the Inquest in 1949 or 1958 with place of death which was unknown, cause of death agreeing with Sir Stanton Hicks choice of poison and he couldn't say if he poison was administered by himself or another person.

Anyone reading all the medical evidence given at the Inquest would agree with Coroner Clelands summing up of eh evidence at the Inquest. There are few enough facts with this case that I believe you should use the few that have been established by experts at the time.

I don't subscribe to that view at all. Any investigator would want to know why the findings were changed to assume he just rubber-stamped it and threw any old words in there is, in my view, not credible.

What evidence do you have that Cleland was a member of the communist party?

 

[Gordon1552]

You have a very good understanding of the cold war situation against the Communists that existed in Australia and many Western countries post WW2. So if you want to expand your thinking, I'm posing serious questions about Elliot Frank Johnston.

How did this man who was a card carrying communist party organisor in Adelaide, someone who was under ASIO (or it's predecessor) surveillance and even now has only 70 documents out of 300 available to view, thrive in his business and become a QC and SA Supreme Court judge?

An acquaintance of his who knew him in 1948 has written a letter suggesting he was involved in the death of SM (among other accusations) using plant poison. This person also allege Elliot was given 50,000 pounds in 1949 which he bought a flash car and big house. In an oral interview Johnston talks abut being a Communist organisor for much of the 50's and not working again as a lawyer until 1957. He also travelled to different countries around the world, including Russia, China, India and Korea during this time.

Was Elliot Johnston driving a flash car, and what was it?
Was this money he was alleged to be given connected to the SM case? Hush money for keeping a secret about SM identity or his purpose in Adelaide?
Did EJ have information only known to the top at ASIO that could compromise Australia or Allies in USA (CIA) or MI5 that gave him a free ride even though he was a card carrying communist?

My knowledge is more about the espionage activities of the communists in Australia, the leaks and the people who were or who may have been involved. I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the CPA at that time except for where it involved Wally Clayton and his modus operandi for want of a better term. I have a better knowledge of the anti-communist movement and in particular, have an interest in and knowledge of the operations of Commander Rupert Long through WW2 and his connections in the immediate aftermath of the war and by default the makeup of the Association. In an earlier comment I mentioned the 130000 members of the organisation who would be called upon if necessary. These were by and large members of the RSL, you will ind that a number of the senior officers mentioned in the Association hierarchy were also linked to the RSL, they had some 100000 members at the time. Many of these had been on active service in WW2 and a good number were involved in the CMF through the war years on local duties including Coast Watching within Australia. Both Paul Lawson and John Lyons were active members of the CMF until 1947? But need to confirm that.

 

[Beatnicked]

That's possibly true as there were many mistak
es Prof Hicks personally corrected on his statement, but the Exhibits didn't seem to be looked at.

Unfortunately then Coroner Cleland then repeats the mistake by talking abut glucosides and not glygosices.

I don't think there is anyway the death by poisoning can be fully accepted under the circumstances. If The man had traveled from USA (the cops said his jacket had been tailored to a high quality in the USA) he may have developed a deep vein thrombosis that led to heart failure.

If he did travel by air from east coast USA was he connected to the mafiosa? Removal of clothing labels (except from items purchased in Australia) to me says ... a new beginning.

 

[Beatnicked]

I think you'll find it was taken by a stenographer, 200 words a minute at high accuracy. It's effectively a form of shorthand, found this image below that shows the output. It would be very easy to misspell or transcribe wrongly.

I am astonished that no 'expert' person picked up on the error.

I have been told that during an autopsy examination the Coroner would speak into a recording equipment microphone to record their findings during the examination and a separate person would transcribe findings in written form for the Coroner to sign off.

Such recording should be kept on file.

 

[Gordon1552]

I am astonished that no 'expert' person picked up on the error.

I have been told that during an autopsy examination the Coroner would speak into a recording equipment microphone to record their findings during the examination and a separate person would transcribe findings in written form for the Coroner to sign off.

Such recording should be kept on file.

Your are correct but it seems that many documents from this particular file have gone missing including the autopsy docs and the inquest transcripts. On the issue of voice recording, I have attached a document from a Law Journal discussing the SM case and reference is made to the way the inquest was conducted as in who asked questions. From that, we can deduce that a voice recorder wouldn't have done the job. There's a request under FOI in place for the transcript if it is still in existence. It would be very useful to know who asked what questions, in the attached you will read that a Detective may have been assisting the coroner.

 

[Gordon1552]

I don't think there is anyway the death by poisoning can be fully accepted under the circumstances. If The man had traveled from USA (the cops said his jacket had been tailored to a high quality in the USA) he may have developed a deep vein thrombosis that led to heart failure.

If he did travel by air from east coast USA was he connected to the mafiosa? Removal of clothing labels (except from items purchased in Australia) to me says ... a new beginning.

I think that the autopsy shows quite clearly that there was more than a thrombosis issue. The engorged organs and the spleen being 3 times its normal size all point to a poison of some sort. The type of poison was never clearly defined and there were many options some known and some not at that time.

 

[Gordon1552]

A short history of Soviet Assassination techniques using poisons. Whilst the document is dated 1964, it refers to an earlier period that covers the mid to late 40s. Note the unusual poisons and gases used. On page 7, the questions regarding Soviet Assassinations of their own people is answered, Would they? Could they? Did they? Yes, Yes and Yes.

<iframe src="" width="640" height="480"></iframe>

 

[Beatnicked]

Your are correct but it seems that many documents from this particular file have gone missing including the autopsy docs and the inquest transcripts. On the issue of voice recording, I have attached a document from a Law Journal discussing the SM case and reference is made to the way the inquest was conducted as in who asked questions. From that, we can deduce that a voice recorder wouldn't have done the job. There's a request under FOI in place for the transcript if it is still in existence. It would be very useful to know who asked what questions, in the attached you will read that a Detective may have been assisting the coroner.

I have read nothing that indicates a severely enlarged spleen results from digitoxin poisoning. He may have died as a consequence of a pre existing illness.

 

[Redacted]

What's the point of holding a second inquest to issue a death certificate?

I think it's a technical issue which was to enable South Australian Police to either close the case or keep it open.

Time may of run out, without a certificate to formalise a reason for Police to keep the case open indefinitely.

Keeping the case open keeps Police in control of the investigation, the collected evidence and any new evidence that comes to light, as seen recently when Mr Abbott collected some hairs for a new DNA test.

Maybe that's the point of the second inquest?


Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk