Australia Australia - Tamam Shud Case - Male, Dec 1948
- Thread starter shadowangel
- Start date
Re-Jetty Photo... On 19/2/14 I emailed Prof. Derek Abbott to seek his opinion. I included an explanation and attached the Jetty photo. I followed this with Makara's little comparison compilation, lad in the wetsuit and Robin x 2 (and again, hope you don't mind my use of your work Makara).
Derek's same day reply was..."It's not Robin. Photos of him in 1963 look very different and well over 10 years younger". He goes on to point out the 60 Minutes program where Robin is sitting in the back of an Asian 'taxi bike' with his Mum which he states was taken in 1962, adding that Robin is aged 15 in this photo, but always looked younger for age and why he looks 12-13 in the photo.
I responded with the Asian 'taxi bike' photo 'attached' and asked to see the 1963 'Robin photo' in order I could be convinced. I also brought the ear shape for the wetsuit lad and a few other matters to his attention.
Prof. Abbotts reply 19/2/14 was...."It is definitely not Robin" ...D (signed)
Meanwhile next day at our end, my brother located the slide for the Jetty Photo. He said it had been stamped January 1963, but no other information was added unfortunately. This date, that we presume came by way of the 'processor', supports our own estimate of our ages as children at the time. It would also mean that the Jetty Photo film must have been processed soon after the photo was taken. It also has me question the timeline for Robins holiday photos. If these have been dated also, it merely gives the date processed. Sometimes processing of holiday pictures can be delayed, however it's more likely months, rather than years. As those pictured in the Asian 'taxi bike' are deceased (and the woman sitting up front isn't named) either date and details have been written on the photo or we're relying on another family members memory (someone that's not pictured, therefore not present/or they took the photo).
I'll now try to have our friend hunt up those Poultney Grammar School Magazines to see if there's any for Robin that will give proof of age and matching appearance.
Certainly Robin in the Asian 'taxi bike' at 15 looks nothing like the lad in the wetsuit. Hormones bring dramatic changes for boys when they become men, but this would be an extreme transformation over a year, and Abbott says he has photographic proof (1963 photo) that "it's not Robin" in the wetsuit (that I've not seen). I'm wondering whether anyone else has this 1963 Robin photo and also whether Robins age is known for the other shots in Makara's photo compilation. As my brother and I are searching for the truth re- identity for the lad in the wetsuit, if it's not Robin standing next to me on the Jetty...who is it? I'm now left wondering whether our mystery SM had a family here, and that would be good. He will need to be the around the same age as Robin.
Derek's same day reply was..."It's not Robin. Photos of him in 1963 look very different and well over 10 years younger". He goes on to point out the 60 Minutes program where Robin is sitting in the back of an Asian 'taxi bike' with his Mum which he states was taken in 1962, adding that Robin is aged 15 in this photo, but always looked younger for age and why he looks 12-13 in the photo.
I responded with the Asian 'taxi bike' photo 'attached' and asked to see the 1963 'Robin photo' in order I could be convinced. I also brought the ear shape for the wetsuit lad and a few other matters to his attention.
Prof. Abbotts reply 19/2/14 was...."It is definitely not Robin" ...D (signed)
Meanwhile next day at our end, my brother located the slide for the Jetty Photo. He said it had been stamped January 1963, but no other information was added unfortunately. This date, that we presume came by way of the 'processor', supports our own estimate of our ages as children at the time. It would also mean that the Jetty Photo film must have been processed soon after the photo was taken. It also has me question the timeline for Robins holiday photos. If these have been dated also, it merely gives the date processed. Sometimes processing of holiday pictures can be delayed, however it's more likely months, rather than years. As those pictured in the Asian 'taxi bike' are deceased (and the woman sitting up front isn't named) either date and details have been written on the photo or we're relying on another family members memory (someone that's not pictured, therefore not present/or they took the photo).
I'll now try to have our friend hunt up those Poultney Grammar School Magazines to see if there's any for Robin that will give proof of age and matching appearance.
Certainly Robin in the Asian 'taxi bike' at 15 looks nothing like the lad in the wetsuit. Hormones bring dramatic changes for boys when they become men, but this would be an extreme transformation over a year, and Abbott says he has photographic proof (1963 photo) that "it's not Robin" in the wetsuit (that I've not seen). I'm wondering whether anyone else has this 1963 Robin photo and also whether Robins age is known for the other shots in Makara's photo compilation. As my brother and I are searching for the truth re- identity for the lad in the wetsuit, if it's not Robin standing next to me on the Jetty...who is it? I'm now left wondering whether our mystery SM had a family here, and that would be good. He will need to be the around the same age as Robin.
What do others think? If Prof. Abbott says he has undisputable proof via his 1963 photo that Robin can not be the chap in the wetsuit, and he's not prepared to show me (or you), surely he has a duty to produce the 1963 photo to Det. Georg at Major Crime (Georg is in charge of SM's case). When Police say that a case 'remains open', and that 'they are investigating' the Public trust they mean what they say. Thus I'll inform Det. Georg of Prof. Abbotts claims. That way he can call forward the evidence.
Makara...You said that photos of Robin and Kate are of them aged 10-12 and I'm presuming this refers to the two sitting in the boat (labelled Robin and Kate), however when I looked at the 'taxi bike' photo I also presumed it was Kate sitting in the back seat with Robin, and their Mother seated up front. If Abbott now states it's the Mother that's in the back with Robin, is it also possible it's his Mother sitting in the boat. Kate was a few years younger than Robin (3 years I think), also their Mum was quite a small woman. Can we be sure about who's pictured in the boat etc. or did Mother and daughter look alike. I want to be sure about what I'm looking at due to Abbotts statement.
I'll will also add that from the outset Prof. Abbott was quick to dismiss the I.D. and he gathered up a his own little campaign to ensure others would also. The Sunday Mail feature on the Reynolds I.D. reported by Emily Watkins was very different than the 'breakdown' shown on the internet. The original article was a double page colour spread with diagrams explaining the facial similarities Maciej Henneberg based his findings upon, and that included the dimple that appears on the I.D. photo giving viewers the illusion of a clef chin. It was actually only a mark on the photo. We don't know whether it was deliberately placed there obviously. Maciej is the exert in this field. Abbott is in Elec/Eng.
Everyone should understand I'm having to deal with a few underlying self interests from others, but it's not a competition, not for me anyway. Mr. Feltus has his book 'The Unknown Man' to sell, and Derek Abbott is pushing for SM's exhumation in order to run his D.N.A. experiment. My only wish is to find the deceased / SM's name and family, and perhaps in the end, some justice. We should be serving the victim (if murdered) first.
Makara...You said that photos of Robin and Kate are of them aged 10-12 and I'm presuming this refers to the two sitting in the boat (labelled Robin and Kate), however when I looked at the 'taxi bike' photo I also presumed it was Kate sitting in the back seat with Robin, and their Mother seated up front. If Abbott now states it's the Mother that's in the back with Robin, is it also possible it's his Mother sitting in the boat. Kate was a few years younger than Robin (3 years I think), also their Mum was quite a small woman. Can we be sure about who's pictured in the boat etc. or did Mother and daughter look alike. I want to be sure about what I'm looking at due to Abbotts statement.
I'll will also add that from the outset Prof. Abbott was quick to dismiss the I.D. and he gathered up a his own little campaign to ensure others would also. The Sunday Mail feature on the Reynolds I.D. reported by Emily Watkins was very different than the 'breakdown' shown on the internet. The original article was a double page colour spread with diagrams explaining the facial similarities Maciej Henneberg based his findings upon, and that included the dimple that appears on the I.D. photo giving viewers the illusion of a clef chin. It was actually only a mark on the photo. We don't know whether it was deliberately placed there obviously. Maciej is the exert in this field. Abbott is in Elec/Eng.
Everyone should understand I'm having to deal with a few underlying self interests from others, but it's not a competition, not for me anyway. Mr. Feltus has his book 'The Unknown Man' to sell, and Derek Abbott is pushing for SM's exhumation in order to run his D.N.A. experiment. My only wish is to find the deceased / SM's name and family, and perhaps in the end, some justice. We should be serving the victim (if murdered) first.
Makara
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,107
- Reaction score
- 86
Xlamb, the pics I've posted here of Robin Thomson etc. are screen captures taken from the video at the link below.
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8759245
I'm guessing that the photos of Robin and Jessica were supplied by either Robin's wife Roma or his sister Kate. It may be worthwhile contacting Channel 9 to establish who supplied the photos. You may also need to get in contact with Roma and/or Kate.
It was also only a guess on my part that Robin was aged 10-12 in the photo of he and Kate in the canoe.
Due to his unusual ears and lack of teeth, SM was thought to have had auricular dysplasia and anodontia. These two afflictions are quite often symptoms of something else known as ectodermic dysplasia. Mainly it affects men because its a genetic problem in chromosome X. The disease is transmitted from mother to child. It affects skin, hair, nails, and teeth. There are more than 150 variants of the same disease and its divided in turn into four main groups, it depends on what physical characteristics the person has developed:
BBM.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001469.htm
BBM: Could it be that SM suffered a seizure due to increased body temperature? It was reported that 30 November 1948 was a warm day in Adelaide, yet SM was dressed in layers of clothing. Where was he when he dressed for the day? Why so many clothes? Did he arrive from somewhere much cooler and hadn't anticipated the warm weather of Adelaide. He also wasn't wearing a hat. If he was in fact suffering from ectodermal dysplasia, did he even know that?
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8759245
I'm guessing that the photos of Robin and Jessica were supplied by either Robin's wife Roma or his sister Kate. It may be worthwhile contacting Channel 9 to establish who supplied the photos. You may also need to get in contact with Roma and/or Kate.
It was also only a guess on my part that Robin was aged 10-12 in the photo of he and Kate in the canoe.
Due to his unusual ears and lack of teeth, SM was thought to have had auricular dysplasia and anodontia. These two afflictions are quite often symptoms of something else known as ectodermic dysplasia. Mainly it affects men because its a genetic problem in chromosome X. The disease is transmitted from mother to child. It affects skin, hair, nails, and teeth. There are more than 150 variants of the same disease and its divided in turn into four main groups, it depends on what physical characteristics the person has developed:
BBM.
- -tricodysplastic (lack of body hair or at least having little hair on eyebrows, chest, legs, etc)
- -onicodysplastic (nails are affected and they show strange forms)
- -dentodysplastic (teeth have an uncommon shape, they seem inverted cones like those of a shark)
- -hippohydrotic (the patient cant control his own body temperature and needs special care and the most important thing: they cant tolerate warm places because this can result in death. They have no sweat glands so their bodies cannot regulate the quantity of water to refresh when its warm around).
- -respiratory infections.
- -white or quasi-transparent skin.
- -low nasal bridge (the bridge is lower than in a normal nose, its compared to a saddle).
- -pointed ears with a bigger cavum and a smaller cymba (Prof. Derek Abbotts observation).
- -a fissure on upper lip, which is also thinner.
- -prominent pointed chin and wide forehead.
- -wedged toes or even fusion of toes.
- -deafness.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001469.htm
BBM: Could it be that SM suffered a seizure due to increased body temperature? It was reported that 30 November 1948 was a warm day in Adelaide, yet SM was dressed in layers of clothing. Where was he when he dressed for the day? Why so many clothes? Did he arrive from somewhere much cooler and hadn't anticipated the warm weather of Adelaide. He also wasn't wearing a hat. If he was in fact suffering from ectodermal dysplasia, did he even know that?
Makara, Thanks for the suggestion re chasing up photos via Robins family, but I've already had a close encounter with one 'said Thomson' called James. I think it's better that Police follow up such things and as I've supplied them with the information, it's their job to chase up. Thanks for setting me straight regarding age for Robin 'as unsure'. I think the finer points on 'real proof of age' will need to be established for Abbotts 1963 photo in order to rule out the lad in the wetsuit. Again a job for Police.
I've read this theory that SM fathered Robin continuously stated as fact due to this rare ear, missing teeth etc., and I've also seen the science relating to these abnormalities spoken of before. When so much speculation flies about I like to fall back on the science, because in most cases, it doesn't lie, and there's no motive, no purpose for distorting such evidence for something like this.
If as you say it's passed through the female gene, it seems to rule out SM as Robins father. Perhaps SM's is linked as a relative of Jestyns though...or maybe I've misunderstood?
If it's true that Robin had some affliction, it would have to be in the mildest form.
What we do know to be true according to the family and supported by records, is that Robin was a ballet dancer. Such a profession would require peek physical strength, certainly not buckled toes (to begin anyway).. If he were physically unsuited for such a career, he'd never have been advanced further as a dancer. If heat /body temperature was a problem that would also rule him out.
It's hard to know if it could have been a contributing factor for SM's demise though, and there appears to be so many variations (150). Both Robin and SM had pleasant faces, good/healthy features. Neither fit an image of deformity. Dentures and bridges were common in SM's time, and he'd lost a lot of teeth. I think that was also pretty standard for those times. SM was too well nourished and well presented/ well groomed to neglect something like teeth, so I would expect he chewed with false ones, but lost in transport. Either while being carried prior to being placed against the beach wall, or on the way to the Morgue, or he'd vomited earlier elsewhere, and lost them then. There was a report of a man being carried by another along the shore line, according to Gerry Feltus (author 'The Unknown Man').
Exhuming SM might allow confirmation to support past autopsy finding or make correction, but I still have concerns about motive. It's also thought that the method used for 'preservation' have destroyed the D.N.A.. I'd be doing a whip around the living family members first. Apart from Roma's daughter, Robin was married and had 2 other children I was told. Surely that would clear up something if their D.N.A. was compared to Kate. James can submit his also!
My interest is not so much with the Thomson's and who fathered who, but what I observed of my own father and any of his involvement with the deceased, the I.D. etc. I have a very different slant on this due to what I observed of my fathers activities from late 50's on. There's also the Code, which may boil down to a bit of nonsense, but built into something more extraordinary than it really is. The Public and Police may have been hoodwinked from the outset I think, but the mystery still lingers on.
I've read this theory that SM fathered Robin continuously stated as fact due to this rare ear, missing teeth etc., and I've also seen the science relating to these abnormalities spoken of before. When so much speculation flies about I like to fall back on the science, because in most cases, it doesn't lie, and there's no motive, no purpose for distorting such evidence for something like this.
If as you say it's passed through the female gene, it seems to rule out SM as Robins father. Perhaps SM's is linked as a relative of Jestyns though...or maybe I've misunderstood?
If it's true that Robin had some affliction, it would have to be in the mildest form.
What we do know to be true according to the family and supported by records, is that Robin was a ballet dancer. Such a profession would require peek physical strength, certainly not buckled toes (to begin anyway).. If he were physically unsuited for such a career, he'd never have been advanced further as a dancer. If heat /body temperature was a problem that would also rule him out.
It's hard to know if it could have been a contributing factor for SM's demise though, and there appears to be so many variations (150). Both Robin and SM had pleasant faces, good/healthy features. Neither fit an image of deformity. Dentures and bridges were common in SM's time, and he'd lost a lot of teeth. I think that was also pretty standard for those times. SM was too well nourished and well presented/ well groomed to neglect something like teeth, so I would expect he chewed with false ones, but lost in transport. Either while being carried prior to being placed against the beach wall, or on the way to the Morgue, or he'd vomited earlier elsewhere, and lost them then. There was a report of a man being carried by another along the shore line, according to Gerry Feltus (author 'The Unknown Man').
Exhuming SM might allow confirmation to support past autopsy finding or make correction, but I still have concerns about motive. It's also thought that the method used for 'preservation' have destroyed the D.N.A.. I'd be doing a whip around the living family members first. Apart from Roma's daughter, Robin was married and had 2 other children I was told. Surely that would clear up something if their D.N.A. was compared to Kate. James can submit his also!
My interest is not so much with the Thomson's and who fathered who, but what I observed of my own father and any of his involvement with the deceased, the I.D. etc. I have a very different slant on this due to what I observed of my fathers activities from late 50's on. There's also the Code, which may boil down to a bit of nonsense, but built into something more extraordinary than it really is. The Public and Police may have been hoodwinked from the outset I think, but the mystery still lingers on.
Some things don't make sense!
I've wondered why, as Jestyn has been portrayed as a devious woman, she would volunteer to Police that she gave Alf Boxal a copy of Omar Khayyam's' book in order they could check if it was him found on the beach. No-one would have even known about her past gift to Boxal, unless she'd told them.
I also question why, if there were morgue photos, Police didn't show her these instead of the plaster bust, as photo would be more reliable. If she'd been asked "do you recognise this man" while viewing it and answered "no'!, then you'd expect they'd produce photos to assist her memory, and to be certain.
If Khayyam's book is the crucial evidence linking Jestyn to SM due to her phone number, why did it disappear from evidence so early in the piece. I've seen it reported that the book vanished around 1950/1952.
It would help if someone else could validate this, as fact.
Much has been made of the book, the piece of paper, the phone number, the Code and all wrapped up by way of the book (which was also said to be rare and of value). Where did the piece of paper go then? Why keep the suitcase, and not the book and slip of paper.
While it's been reported that the suitcase was destroyed after a cold case review in around 1985, I've asked around to see if anyone witnessed it's destruction, but no-one could say what happened to it. There'd have to be some Police Protocol for the destruction of evidence, and a record to match. This suitcase nor any other evidence is capable of climbing into an incinerator on it's own. Same goes for the book etc.
Back in that time frame...How could Police be certain so soon after SM's burial, that someone couldn't still walk into a Police Station (from any place in Australia or Overseas) to either claim the deceased, report him missing, or bring forward a witness account and new information/accusations that could lead to an arrest. And how would the trial ever proceed successfully without those significant pieces of evidence (the book, the piece of paper).
Had Police already determined they'd been led up the garden path, and happy to leave it at that. To my mind, it just doesn't make sense!
I've wondered why, as Jestyn has been portrayed as a devious woman, she would volunteer to Police that she gave Alf Boxal a copy of Omar Khayyam's' book in order they could check if it was him found on the beach. No-one would have even known about her past gift to Boxal, unless she'd told them.
I also question why, if there were morgue photos, Police didn't show her these instead of the plaster bust, as photo would be more reliable. If she'd been asked "do you recognise this man" while viewing it and answered "no'!, then you'd expect they'd produce photos to assist her memory, and to be certain.
If Khayyam's book is the crucial evidence linking Jestyn to SM due to her phone number, why did it disappear from evidence so early in the piece. I've seen it reported that the book vanished around 1950/1952.
It would help if someone else could validate this, as fact.
Much has been made of the book, the piece of paper, the phone number, the Code and all wrapped up by way of the book (which was also said to be rare and of value). Where did the piece of paper go then? Why keep the suitcase, and not the book and slip of paper.
While it's been reported that the suitcase was destroyed after a cold case review in around 1985, I've asked around to see if anyone witnessed it's destruction, but no-one could say what happened to it. There'd have to be some Police Protocol for the destruction of evidence, and a record to match. This suitcase nor any other evidence is capable of climbing into an incinerator on it's own. Same goes for the book etc.
Back in that time frame...How could Police be certain so soon after SM's burial, that someone couldn't still walk into a Police Station (from any place in Australia or Overseas) to either claim the deceased, report him missing, or bring forward a witness account and new information/accusations that could lead to an arrest. And how would the trial ever proceed successfully without those significant pieces of evidence (the book, the piece of paper).
Had Police already determined they'd been led up the garden path, and happy to leave it at that. To my mind, it just doesn't make sense!
Makara
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,107
- Reaction score
- 86
Yes, it does seem a bit odd that both the book at the suitcase have disappeared.
It's also interesting that, along with Jessica's phone number written on the back of the Rubaiyat, there was also the phone number of a bank. I find it odd that there has not been more reported about this. The fact that SM didn't have any money on him seems strange and I wonder if he was waiting for a deposit to clear at the bank belonging to that phone number.
It's also interesting that, along with Jessica's phone number written on the back of the Rubaiyat, there was also the phone number of a bank. I find it odd that there has not been more reported about this. The fact that SM didn't have any money on him seems strange and I wonder if he was waiting for a deposit to clear at the bank belonging to that phone number.
I forgot all about the number for the Bank Makara. It lends to the possibility that someone could have taken his life, removed all evidence of identity, and then taken whatever he owned as well. No wallet and any identity details it contained could then be used to empty a Bank account. He could have withdrawn his money, then it's stolen. Alternately he may have intended to make a deposit, but never made it. Do records show which Bank, and if it's in South Australian or Interstate. What became of bank accounts left inactive back then or did someone assume SM's identity permanently.
I think you have to wait 7 years before you can declare someone's dead (presumed) in the case of Insurance, but there'd be a thorough search first.
Why would Police chase up Jestyn's phone number, but neglect checking those Bank details. SM was dressed well, had manicured nails and polished shoes. He could easily have passed as someone who worked in a Bank.
It's most often a family member that reports a loved one as missing. Though some tried to identify him, non of his family came forward. Police will often look to people known to the victim (including family members) and eliminate them as possible suspects first. Perhaps there was a reason for their 'no show'. Prevented by other family members, too afraid to come forward or it served against them to front up.
Everything seems to rest on having a name for the deceased.
Police had fingerprint samples taken from SM. I can understand why it may have been difficult to lift fingerprints from the suitcase (and likely handled by numerous people), but I've seen no reports about the glass dish or any other object being fingerprinted for a match. The only prints that should be found on the personal contents in the suitcase, should be the victims. Anything else would point to contamination by other person/s.
There was no proof that it was the deceased that checked the suitcase into the Railway Station.
No ticket stub was found for it's retrieval. Apart from 6p. they found no spare cash tucked away. Pity they didn't check for fingerprints.
I think you have to wait 7 years before you can declare someone's dead (presumed) in the case of Insurance, but there'd be a thorough search first.
Why would Police chase up Jestyn's phone number, but neglect checking those Bank details. SM was dressed well, had manicured nails and polished shoes. He could easily have passed as someone who worked in a Bank.
It's most often a family member that reports a loved one as missing. Though some tried to identify him, non of his family came forward. Police will often look to people known to the victim (including family members) and eliminate them as possible suspects first. Perhaps there was a reason for their 'no show'. Prevented by other family members, too afraid to come forward or it served against them to front up.
Everything seems to rest on having a name for the deceased.
Police had fingerprint samples taken from SM. I can understand why it may have been difficult to lift fingerprints from the suitcase (and likely handled by numerous people), but I've seen no reports about the glass dish or any other object being fingerprinted for a match. The only prints that should be found on the personal contents in the suitcase, should be the victims. Anything else would point to contamination by other person/s.
There was no proof that it was the deceased that checked the suitcase into the Railway Station.
No ticket stub was found for it's retrieval. Apart from 6p. they found no spare cash tucked away. Pity they didn't check for fingerprints.
Re- Bank...Oswald Bayley Reynolds (b. 1891) was a senior bank administrator with the English, Scottish and Australia Bank. He was the eldest brother of Horace Charles Reynolds said to have died 16/5/53. The cipher mysteries site examined the origins of the H.C. Reynolds I.D. and believed that it belonged to Horace Charles Reynolds from Tasmania (b. 8/2/1900), and therefore it can not be Horace that's found on the beach in 1948 (because he died later in 1953).
However Maciej Henneberg insists that the chap pictured on the H.C. Reynolds I.D. matches SM (we can't be certain that the man in the I.D. photo is same man that's named on the I.D.). We need a photo of Horace to be certain.
Debra Fasano from cipher mysteries found this article for Oswald Bayley Reynolds on trove. It announces Oswald's retirement 27/5/52.
"Banks would be 'tower of strength' in financial crisis"
http:/trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/27090666
Debra also found this in the Hobart Mercury Newspaper 18/5/53.
REYNOLDS -Suddenly, on May 16,
1953, at a private hospital, Hobart,
Horace Charles Reynolds, late of
Brookvale, New South Wales, aged 53
years. Private cremation.
So Horace dies suddenly on the 16th., the paper is notified in order it is announced by the 18th. and he's been incinerated meanwhile. There's nothing to say Horace was expected to die e.g. 'after a long illness' etc., thus time in advance to prepare such a quick announcement and send off. No advise to family and friends via the usual Obituary Notice and Funeral to follow, in case they'd like to attend. It's all a bit short and sharp for my liking. Poor Horace! What a dismal ending.
What I also find curious is that there seems to be no photo of Horace (at any age) in order that it can be used to compare to the photo on the I.D.. Not one of him as a baby, a boy, or of him pictured with either of his 2 brothers, nor with his parents. There isn't even a photo of the parents (at any age).
In contrast SM had many witnesses, so we know he was the body found on the beach 1/12/48, but all traces of his identity had been removed.
There's the proof via the morgue photos of SM, and we now have the I.D. photo that is said by an Expert to be a match.
On the other hand, Horace's cremation lacked witnesses and he has no photos at all. Without a photo he seems to have vanished along with his body once it was cremated. I find it all rather odd.
As Horace's brother Oswald was high up in the banking business, I think it would be helpful if we can follow up the Bank phone number (found on the book) just in case there's a link.
However Maciej Henneberg insists that the chap pictured on the H.C. Reynolds I.D. matches SM (we can't be certain that the man in the I.D. photo is same man that's named on the I.D.). We need a photo of Horace to be certain.
Debra Fasano from cipher mysteries found this article for Oswald Bayley Reynolds on trove. It announces Oswald's retirement 27/5/52.
"Banks would be 'tower of strength' in financial crisis"
http:/trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/27090666
Debra also found this in the Hobart Mercury Newspaper 18/5/53.
REYNOLDS -Suddenly, on May 16,
1953, at a private hospital, Hobart,
Horace Charles Reynolds, late of
Brookvale, New South Wales, aged 53
years. Private cremation.
So Horace dies suddenly on the 16th., the paper is notified in order it is announced by the 18th. and he's been incinerated meanwhile. There's nothing to say Horace was expected to die e.g. 'after a long illness' etc., thus time in advance to prepare such a quick announcement and send off. No advise to family and friends via the usual Obituary Notice and Funeral to follow, in case they'd like to attend. It's all a bit short and sharp for my liking. Poor Horace! What a dismal ending.
What I also find curious is that there seems to be no photo of Horace (at any age) in order that it can be used to compare to the photo on the I.D.. Not one of him as a baby, a boy, or of him pictured with either of his 2 brothers, nor with his parents. There isn't even a photo of the parents (at any age).
In contrast SM had many witnesses, so we know he was the body found on the beach 1/12/48, but all traces of his identity had been removed.
There's the proof via the morgue photos of SM, and we now have the I.D. photo that is said by an Expert to be a match.
On the other hand, Horace's cremation lacked witnesses and he has no photos at all. Without a photo he seems to have vanished along with his body once it was cremated. I find it all rather odd.
As Horace's brother Oswald was high up in the banking business, I think it would be helpful if we can follow up the Bank phone number (found on the book) just in case there's a link.
xlamb, I have read this entire thread. I used to visit it often but haven't for a while so I refreshed my memory.
I am reading what you have added to the thread and it is very intriguing. May I ask, do you still speak to and have a relationship with your father? Could you ask him about the id and other things discussed here? Perhaps tell him you are writing a book about your childhood or even his life and give him an opportunity to brag about his life, etc.
If this is way off base, I'm sorry. I'm also sorry for the abuse you suffered at the hands of your own father. Praying that answers can be found one day.
I am reading what you have added to the thread and it is very intriguing. May I ask, do you still speak to and have a relationship with your father? Could you ask him about the id and other things discussed here? Perhaps tell him you are writing a book about your childhood or even his life and give him an opportunity to brag about his life, etc.
If this is way off base, I'm sorry. I'm also sorry for the abuse you suffered at the hands of your own father. Praying that answers can be found one day.
Veidt
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2012
- Messages
- 457
- Reaction score
- 59
I don't disagree with this.
However:
- A drowning if it something seemed off could be treated as autopsy-worthy though, no? If a healthy-looking man looked like he'd drowned for no reason but there were no signs of him having been underwater long enough to decompose then I think they would have wanted to know if he had a disease or something. Either way, I don't see how it could have mistaken for a drowning. He was found on a beach, in the same spot where he'd been spotted alive. Presumably there were no signs of drowning, both in terms of his body but also in terms of things like water damage to the clothes and such.
- Removing tags would have allowed to check where the clothes were bought and not the person BUT if it was something very specific then it could have been removed for that reason. Thanks for your suggestion about spy novels but I'm not a fan of the genre. For example, if I was found dead wearing my clothes, my family could probably guess there was a higher chance of it being me or not based on the brand of the clothes... of course there are also other factors that count but that could add to it. Also, remember that while there was mass-manufacture (I think that's what it's called) of clothes by the 1940s it was not like nowadays where everyone and their mother has clothes from certain huge clothes stores worldwide. Looking at clothes owned by my older relatives, sometimes even up the 80s, many of them have tags that mention smaller local brands that would have existed only in a certain region or tags that even mention the place of purchase like such-and-such boutique. Also, I don't know about you but, I can see many reasons why someone depending on their personality could have their name or identifying marks on clothing labels, such as if their job or hobby required changing clothes in places like dressing rooms. I don't know if it was common practice in the 1940s but I know that some charity places cut off the tags or mark them in some way to prevent reselling, if they were marked then it could narrow it down.
- 'Sending a message'... could be for many reasons, criminals, spies, anything. It doesn't have to be so dramatic however. Someone who killed themselves could be sending a message to a romantic interest or lover, even someone who they felt had 'wronged' them in some way. When people are overcome with grief sometimes they do things that don't make much sense to others but which make sense to themselves. There are cases of people who commit suicide because they think that will 'show' someone who has hurt them. He could have tried to erase his own identity while also making it so that someone, somewhere would know who he was and feel guilty for example.
- Yes, a stowaway or immigrant would likely be near people of his own community. However, this man was white. Unless he was behaving unusually he wouldn't necessarily have stood out and been stopped by the police to check if he was a immigrant. If he was desperate for some reason, like money, having been shunned by his community, even trying to find a lost relative or friend, he may have been travelling because of that. Even someone ill could have chosen to leave his own home (not necessarily an immigrant) to die away from his loved ones.
- I'm not sure why one would assume the two cases ended up being mistaken. That seems like a more far-gone conclusion, when there's a simpler explanation that nobody was mistaken, the two were related, even if we go with a simple explanation like someone who wanted to end his own life or was ill.
Last Saturday (15/3/14) Elections were held in South Australia. Those results, only announced yesterday, is that the Labour Party will serve another term in Government. In the months leading up to the Election, the Opposition Liberal Party Leader Steven Marshall stated in the media, that if their Party won they'd allow SM's exhumation. As things now stand it will be another 4years before there's any possibility of a change in Government. As long as the current Labour Attorney General Mr. Rau continues to refuse Prof. Abbotts request, there'll be no exhumation and no D.N.A. experiment. That means Prof. Abbott can't offer anything further on SM's identity or paternity for Robin meanwhile. The Somerton Man's mysterious death will remain a 'cold case' if that's what Govt. and Police want.
If the Thomson family are sincere in their quest to find out whether SM is related and don't wish to wait another 4 years battling Govt. attitudes, the other option left available is D.N.A. testing amongst family members to find which of them doesn't fit. Those results might also clear up any connection to the name 'Reynolds' (Cipher Mysteries state also that Horace's Father was Edwin Reynolds and his Mother was Mary Ann Matilda Bayley).
I have no way of knowing whether the H.C. Reynolds I.D. had been tampered with apart from the mark on the chin. It's always possible that an original photo of H.C. Reynolds was removed and replaced with a photo of another man (now proven to match the face of the deceased SM). Unless a photo of Horace is produced we've no proof it's the same person as named on the I.D.. I have to wonder why this hasn't yet happened when Police have the power to force his family members to produce a photo to prove identity and resolve any doubts about the I.D.'s owner. Either it's Horace in the photo or not. Why wouldn't the family members want to claim Horace, or alternatively...rule him out.
Without additional information about Horace, a 'Death Certificate' ... a 'Will' even Obituary Notices from his family at the time of his 'sudden death' combined with a 'photo', we've no way of knowing whether Horace's absence wasn't just tidied up at the other end in the same way it was taken care of prior to his being found dead on the beach 1/12/48. His identity was removed either prior to or once he's found dead, then later on, is everything about him and his life then made to disappear as well (including photos), just to make certain there's no loose ends.
The notice placed in the Hobart Mercury 18/5/53 explains that he's "late of Brookvale N.S.W.". If we had his street address and number and knew whether he owned a residence in Brookvale we might find out who inherited it after his death. The circumstances surrounding SM's death may have made it difficult or uncomfortable for family members to come forward to claim him. Horace is said to have no children.
The death Notice shows Horace has left N.S.W., returning to Hobart where he was born and where his family lives. The private hospital where it states he died is unnamed. Usually you'd only go to a hospital if you were either unwell, visiting another, or you could happened to work there of course. If you then 'died suddenly', it would be investigated (autopsy etc.). Even if death was an obvious suicide following hospital admission, the Law would require some sort of follow up and all these things take time. He has family in Hobart. He dies suddenly on the 16th., he's cremated, and notification this has happened is printed 18/5/53 (thus the Paper advised no later than 17th.). It just doesn't ring true enough for me. Who took responsibility for the announcement...the hospital (not named)...the Funeral Director (no funeral)...With only this scant information, where's the proof and the logic?
For anyone that knew Horace and had questioned his absence (a neighbour or friend) to be shown such a death announcement might be all that was needed to explain his absence.
As long as the rates are paid, Council don't query who paid it or where the money comes from. Are there any Websleuths clever enough to find Horace's Brookvale address, a Death Certificate or a 'Will' for further follow up please.
If it's true that Horace died 16/5/53 then he can't possibly be SM. That would also mean there's no case for my father to answer in relation to SM. Why then doesn't he just tell Police he knew Horace and that's how he came to have his I.D.. Easy to do and then he'd be off the hook!
There has to be a catch in this. And there has to be more to validate Horace's life, than a death notice and a speedy cremation.
As SM's exhumation seems a long way off it would help if the matter of the H. C. Reynolds I.D. could be resolved while we wait.
Just because something is said in the papers, it can't automatically be treated as a 'record' ...
We tend to trust such things, but someone 'unnamed' paid for the death announcement to be printed. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth.
If the Thomson family are sincere in their quest to find out whether SM is related and don't wish to wait another 4 years battling Govt. attitudes, the other option left available is D.N.A. testing amongst family members to find which of them doesn't fit. Those results might also clear up any connection to the name 'Reynolds' (Cipher Mysteries state also that Horace's Father was Edwin Reynolds and his Mother was Mary Ann Matilda Bayley).
I have no way of knowing whether the H.C. Reynolds I.D. had been tampered with apart from the mark on the chin. It's always possible that an original photo of H.C. Reynolds was removed and replaced with a photo of another man (now proven to match the face of the deceased SM). Unless a photo of Horace is produced we've no proof it's the same person as named on the I.D.. I have to wonder why this hasn't yet happened when Police have the power to force his family members to produce a photo to prove identity and resolve any doubts about the I.D.'s owner. Either it's Horace in the photo or not. Why wouldn't the family members want to claim Horace, or alternatively...rule him out.
Without additional information about Horace, a 'Death Certificate' ... a 'Will' even Obituary Notices from his family at the time of his 'sudden death' combined with a 'photo', we've no way of knowing whether Horace's absence wasn't just tidied up at the other end in the same way it was taken care of prior to his being found dead on the beach 1/12/48. His identity was removed either prior to or once he's found dead, then later on, is everything about him and his life then made to disappear as well (including photos), just to make certain there's no loose ends.
The notice placed in the Hobart Mercury 18/5/53 explains that he's "late of Brookvale N.S.W.". If we had his street address and number and knew whether he owned a residence in Brookvale we might find out who inherited it after his death. The circumstances surrounding SM's death may have made it difficult or uncomfortable for family members to come forward to claim him. Horace is said to have no children.
The death Notice shows Horace has left N.S.W., returning to Hobart where he was born and where his family lives. The private hospital where it states he died is unnamed. Usually you'd only go to a hospital if you were either unwell, visiting another, or you could happened to work there of course. If you then 'died suddenly', it would be investigated (autopsy etc.). Even if death was an obvious suicide following hospital admission, the Law would require some sort of follow up and all these things take time. He has family in Hobart. He dies suddenly on the 16th., he's cremated, and notification this has happened is printed 18/5/53 (thus the Paper advised no later than 17th.). It just doesn't ring true enough for me. Who took responsibility for the announcement...the hospital (not named)...the Funeral Director (no funeral)...With only this scant information, where's the proof and the logic?
For anyone that knew Horace and had questioned his absence (a neighbour or friend) to be shown such a death announcement might be all that was needed to explain his absence.
As long as the rates are paid, Council don't query who paid it or where the money comes from. Are there any Websleuths clever enough to find Horace's Brookvale address, a Death Certificate or a 'Will' for further follow up please.
If it's true that Horace died 16/5/53 then he can't possibly be SM. That would also mean there's no case for my father to answer in relation to SM. Why then doesn't he just tell Police he knew Horace and that's how he came to have his I.D.. Easy to do and then he'd be off the hook!
There has to be a catch in this. And there has to be more to validate Horace's life, than a death notice and a speedy cremation.
As SM's exhumation seems a long way off it would help if the matter of the H. C. Reynolds I.D. could be resolved while we wait.
Just because something is said in the papers, it can't automatically be treated as a 'record' ...
We tend to trust such things, but someone 'unnamed' paid for the death announcement to be printed. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth.
Makara: Regarding the bank phone number thought to be on the book.
I did a quick check using "The Unknown Man" as reference. Here are some exerts relating to the mention of a bank number.
Page 105 last paragraph: "Leane soon noticed what appeared to be a telephone number written in pencil on the rear cover of the book." Mr. Feltus has added..."(although there has been mention of other telephone numbers I have not seen any evidence of them.)"
On the next page 104 the author of 'The Unknown Man', Gerry Feltus, has taken some selected passages from undated unnamed newspaper articles. One article titled 'Tamam Shud Mystery' concludes by saying
"On the back of the book are several phone numbers and a series of capitol letters written in pencil. The meaning of this has not yet been deciphered."
On page 118 the code is under discussion with an article that states
"The Mirror invited readers to work out their own solutions to the mystery, to decode the message on which Army experts in Canberra are still working".
It goes on to tell of a Sydney schoolboy providing Adelaide Detectives with the most promising lead. It's titled "Does old bank account hold secret"
Rather than my repeating the entire article, it seems a schoolboy 'Angelo' came up with a number combination that showed a telephone number of the Currie St. Adelaide branch of the Commonwealth Bank, but the papers own enquiries revealed the bank didn't have that same telephone number in 1948, and added that..."the system of direct dialling has been introduced since."
In the closing round up on page 205..."Culling policies" Mr. Feltus points to a newspaper article 1/8/2009.
Here it states that in a fit of spring cleaning police threw out the man's clothes and belongings and the suitcase (then details those items). "The original copy of Rubaiyat Omar Khayyam had been lost by police some time in the 1950's."
The source of the articles are not named, but the Murdock family ran papers in Adelaide back then (and still do).
I raised these articles from the book "The Unknown Man" because the author, retired Adelaide Major Crime Detective Gerry Feltus, had SM's case for many years and thus became the authority on the subject and he's translated what he knows to his book.
There is no other source that I'm aware of to draw information from regarding any bank number written on Khayyam's book. From what Gerry's says, it would seem to me that there's no evidence that a number for a bank was found, but with the original Rubaiyat missing, there's no way to check anyway.
For my own enquiries relating to Horace's brother Oswald Reynolds and his connections to banking, there's obviously no link that can be proven.
The only significance might be that the Rubaiyat disappeared in the same timeframe that Horace is said to have been cremated.
There was already a thread for this case, and I merged your new thread with the existing one.
This case is probably solved. Internationally renowned anatomist and biological anthropologist Professor Maciej Henneberg, of Adelaide University believes that Somerton Man was a British seaman named H.C. Reynolds.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/is-br...ach-body-mystery/story-e6frea6u-1226200076344
Here is his ID card from 1918 (30 years before Somerton Man's death).
I've borrowed from Carlk90245 in order to show the I.D. card and to demonstrate how the first line of 'code' matches the details on the I.D. (and I hope they don't mind).
Some background...
In the 1950's my father would regularly play a board game with his friends. They'd always use the end room at our house, but as it was only a three bedroom house catering for two adults and three children there was limited space. By around 1960 these gathering ended when my Mother complained that she needed its use for a bedroom. I can only guess that the 'club room' moved on elsewhere. My father told me the game they played was called 'ego' and he explained to me what the word meant and a little about the games purpose (in later years he renamed the board game, 'toy soldiers'. It was the same board of squares, using lead soldiers and war strategies etc. to win battle, and played somewhat like a game of chess).
As I've said before, my father often made up stories and puzzles many of which I've since tried to unravel. As a child much of what he told me seemed like nonsense. Certainly there was not much I understood about the content of his stories and puzzles at the time.
As an adult in the process of unravelling the past, I had a family member help me search (I wasn't using the Internet myself then) for this game called 'ego' via the Internet and this lead us to the game 'GO' (I-go). I instantly knew it was the same game my father and his friends would play. Later on, after June 2010 and once I'd rediscovered the I.D. for H.C. Reynolds, I noticed 'GO' represented in the first line of the code found on Khayyam's book. It was then that some of the nonsense (puzzles) my father had told me quickly fell into place, and the first line of the code began to make sense. That is.................
the details on Mr. Reynolds I.D. card match the Somerton Man code for the first line
'MW'RGOABABD
as a record of two players in a game of 'GO'.
'MW' ...Player No. 1...As explained by my father as an M reflected (making MW) and his 'mark' representing both his Grandparents Surnames his family and his genes, like a family crest or emblem or like a 'Masons mark' (brand). I can only say that W is for Wright, but not name M as this would identify my father.
'R' ...Player No. 2... Reynolds.
'GO' ... 'go (also I-go) a Japanese game of territorial possession, played on board of 18x18 squares each player having about 200 pieces. (I've used a 1978 Oxford Illustrated Dictionary. My father always used dictionaries and encyclopaedias to create his other puzzles, so I did likewise for this one). Although it's been shown that the number of squares used can vary slightly, this Dictionary shows 18x18.
'AB' ...Able seaman...'A.B. abbrev. Able seaman' ... as listed in the 1978 Oxford Illustrated Dictionary.
Note that Mr. Reynolds has a seaman's I.D.
'A' ...Age...abbreviation and meaning can be found in most dictionaries.
Mr. Reynolds was 48 in 1948.
'B' ... Birthdate / Born...Dictionary abbreviation. If the age on the I.D. is
correct and Reynolds was 18 in 1918, he must
have been born in 1900.
'D' ... Dead / Died ...Dictionary abbreviation. The Somerton Man was
found deceased on 1st. December 1948.
You only need to know the year of death in order to know A and B. Thus died in 1948, age 48, born 1900. Only someone that knew the deceased or had his I.D. card (as my father did and then myself) would know it would calculate in such a way. Thus the author of the code could be satisfied that the game (GO) was truthfully announced...without giving anything away. It could only remain a secret by erasing the identity of the deceased.
Those that wish to expand their knowledge of the game 'GO' can gain more information via their own research. 'GO' has been played for centuries. Significant games are recorded or announced using a similar format, but without the secrecy.
*So the first line of the 'code' serves as a calculation of sorts*
Next ... The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
*Taman Shud* is said to mean The End / Finish.
The only thing of similar meaning (The End / Finish), and that also asks the reader to make a calculation, comes from the Bible; Revelations, Verse 18...
"Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man." That number as we all know is 666. Calculated as 3x6=18. Thus we have REVELATIONS / The End. Verse 18 (3x6 calculated) =18 in 18. Similarly reflected; TAMAM SHUD / The End. Mr. Reynolds I.D. shows he's 18 in 18 also.
It's my belief that the identity of the deceased was removed for this purpose. Without a name he's just 'a man'. This serves both the code and this passage from Revelations (for the number is that of "a man").
The absence of a name takes investigators down a bizarre path, and the end result effective as a means to distract investigations away from the perpetrator/s. It's possible that the deceased was made a blank canvas on which to place all the 'hocus pocus' re the code, piece of paper, etc. It seems to me that's all anyone had to do back then to get away with murder...just sprinkle about a bit of 'hocus pocus'...then sit back and watch it all take shape. The more bizarre and perplexing...the better your work is advertised perhaps.
I previously mentioned that SM is found on the one year anniversary of Aleister Crowley's death (1/12/47) also, and that Crowley was coined as "The Great Beast from the Biblical Book of Revelations"... plus the importance my father placed on him, and the weird little groups he was involved in back in the 50's/60's and70's.
As for the calculation and first line of the code; anyone can dispute my workings, but they'd need to show me where I'm wrong, produce their own evidence to back it up (and I've an I.D. card photo that matches the deceased).... and then replace it with something better. If anyone can, it's fine with me, particularly if it serves to lighten the burden (a problem shared is a problem solved, or so I've heard).
I've often read that it was thought the code was more likely personalised to the one that wrote it. It may turn out it's the one thing they all got right. It's since been analysed by computers and stacks of people much smarter than me without success. I wasn't witness to the events of 1948. I can only strip back childhood conversations working with the strange and confusing things my father confided to me.
From my position also; it's what happened over the decades that follow 1948 and SM's death; the things 'I was' a witness to, the links to other crimes etc. (and showing further puzzles for some of these) that might bring sense to what happened to SM back in 1948 and who or what it served.
I'm also mindful that the code was lifted from the book via a fairly crude method of UV light back then and it's reproduction may not be exact.
It's also quite possible that as a young man my father took an interest in what happened to SM. He'd have followed the newspapers stories and known about the code etc. in the same way others did, but he expands on the mystery and creates his own spin to it to serve his purposes. Then he later transfers his thoughts to me as a child. Such a scenario doesn't explain his having the I.D. for Mr. Reynolds though, and if we knew more about that, the mystery might be solved. Meanwhile I'm just trying to tell you what I can, and to help make better sense of what may boil down to a lot of silly nonsense. My father was definitely on a mission though. And as it took over his life, it ruined all of ours.
Little Jedi
"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equa
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 984
- Reaction score
- 46
:seeya:
So glad this thread's back !
Here's Xlamb's I.D. Card
From Wiki:
H. C. Reynolds.
" In 2011, an Adelaide woman contacted Maciej Henneberg about an identification card of an H. C. Reynolds that she had found in her father's possessions.
The card, a document issued in the United States to foreign seamen during WWI, was given to biological anthropologist Maciej Henneberg in October 2011 for comparison of the ID photograph to that of the Somerton man. While Henneberg found anatomical similarities in features such as the nose, lips and eyes, he believed they were not as reliable as the close similarity of the ear.
The ear shapes shared by both men were a "very good" match, although Henneberg also found what he called a "unique identifier;" a mole on the cheek that was the same shape and in the same position in both photographs.
"Together with the similarity of the ear characteristics, this mole, in a forensic case, would allow me to make a rare statement positively identifying the Somerton man."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taman_Shud_Case
So glad this thread's back !
Here's Xlamb's I.D. Card
From Wiki:
H. C. Reynolds.
" In 2011, an Adelaide woman contacted Maciej Henneberg about an identification card of an H. C. Reynolds that she had found in her father's possessions.
The card, a document issued in the United States to foreign seamen during WWI, was given to biological anthropologist Maciej Henneberg in October 2011 for comparison of the ID photograph to that of the Somerton man. While Henneberg found anatomical similarities in features such as the nose, lips and eyes, he believed they were not as reliable as the close similarity of the ear.
The ear shapes shared by both men were a "very good" match, although Henneberg also found what he called a "unique identifier;" a mole on the cheek that was the same shape and in the same position in both photographs.
"Together with the similarity of the ear characteristics, this mole, in a forensic case, would allow me to make a rare statement positively identifying the Somerton man."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taman_Shud_Case
Little Jedi
"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equa
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 984
- Reaction score
- 46
From Maciej Henneberg analysis:
Here's the signature shown again on the back of the actual photo on I.D. card.
View attachment 44206
Here's the signature shown again on the back of the actual photo on I.D. card.
View attachment 44206
Little Jedi
"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equa
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 984
- Reaction score
- 46
'Somerton/Unknown Man'
A bit more on the 'ear's explained :
' Maciej Henneberg, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Adelaide, examined images of the Somerton man's ears and found that the cymba (upper ear hollow) is larger than his cavum (lower ear hollow), a feature possessed by only 12% of the Caucasian population.'
Taman Shud Case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A bit more on the 'ear's explained :
' Maciej Henneberg, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Adelaide, examined images of the Somerton man's ears and found that the cymba (upper ear hollow) is larger than his cavum (lower ear hollow), a feature possessed by only 12% of the Caucasian population.'
Taman Shud Case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SS...If you haven't read the book "The Unknown Man" by author Gerry Feltus you should try and get hold of a copy. Gerry does a very good job of laying out all the factual information regarding the Somerton Man case. He also covers newspaper reports and some of the speculation that concerns you here re spies, Codes, missing tags etc..
Prof. Derek Abbott along with some of his students dedicated their time to researching the case, the code etc. and every one involved should be commended for their perseverance and diligence.
Prof. Abbott has recently been reported saying that he has researched the spy theory and the code and concludes to the effect, that neither hold much weight in the end.
The Adelaide Advertiser Newspaper (8/6/14) page 26 introduces it's new
"S.A.'s X Files" re Internet "Advertiser.com.au" with Part 2 / Somerton Man Mystery where Derek Abbott shares his thoughts and his findings.
It's worth reading, although I feel it's a pity the deceased continues to be regarded as more a curiosity than a victim that needs his name restored and some answers.