Skip to content

the unexplained, inexplicable and the redacted.

(1) ‘Surprising but explainable.’

(2) The cigarette that didn’t burn.

(3) The witness’s statement.

(4) Mr Francis.

(5) The Source Code.

(6) Professor Cleland’s lapses.

(7) The analyst who couldn’t.

(8) Numbers never photographed.

(9) The Rubaiyat never photographed.

(10) A statement not required.

(11) A statement not required.

(12) A lack of correspondence.

(13) An absence of socks.

(14) The question Boxall wasn’t asked.


(1) Professor Cleland, professor of Physiology and Pharmacy at University of Adelaide:

“The lividity around the ears and neck was perhaps surprising in view of his position, but it was explainable.”

The explanation was never forthcoming.

(2) A cigarette, half-smoked, had fallen from the deceased’s mouth onto his right collar.

There were no scorch marks found on his cheek or his clothing. His matches were in his pocket.

(3) The credible witness who observed a well-dressed man carrying a man along the Somerton shore the evening before the body was found gave his statement to the police ten years later.

This statement was never acted upon.

(4) The identity of Mr Francis remains redacted.

Given this, the details regarding his finding and handing in of the Rubaiyat to DS  Leane carry doubt.

(5) The source code on the back of the Rubaiyat was obliterated.

(6) Professor Cleland took three months to report his finding of the Tamam Shud slip in the fob pocket of the deceased’s trousers.

Professor Cleland failed to remember the whereabouts of a fob pocket on a pair of commonly made Crusader Cloth trousers.

(7) RJ Cowan was unable to identify the black powder shaken from the brush found in the deceased’s suitcase.

Cowan was the Senior Government Analyst at the time.

(8) A photograph of the phone number found on the back of the Rubaiyat has never been made public. A photograph of the other number found on the back of the same book has never been made public.

(9) The Rubaiyat was never photographed: front, back or interior.

(10) The nurse, a person of interest, was never formally interviewed.

(11) The person of interest’s live-in companion was never formally interviewed.

(12) The deceased’s suitcase contained unused letterforms, pencils and empty envelopes. No correspondence was found in the suitcase.

(13) There were spare singlets and shirts and underpants found in the deceased’s suitcase, but no socks.

(14) “Do you know a man named Keane, initial T ?


4 Comments Post a comment
  1. Clive #

    How come so many basic questions that arose in this investigation were never answered or ignored? Incompetency cannot be the only answer, it would seem to go much further and deeper, on another level to ‘normal’ investigations of this type. Why keep a body in a fridge for 6 months or more, when the investigation itself seemed to have been frozen?

    November 26, 2017
    • It’s a good time to walk back the cat, Clive, you reckon?

      November 26, 2017
  2. Clive #

    Could be! And another thing, who would keep toothpaste and toothbrush in a suitcase? Since the suitcase was found unlocked, were the toothbrush and toothpaste being used, and returned to the suitcase every day?

    November 26, 2017
    • GF said SM had a change of underwear in his pocket … DA said there was a pair of used jocks in the case. Sounds like they got him with his suit case.

      November 26, 2017

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s