Inconsistencies unearthed in the inquest findings
There’s not many.
(1) “I have been discussing the circumstances on the footing that the body found on the morning of 1st December was that of the man seen in the evening of the 30th November.”
(2) “The only articles in the clothing were some cigarettes and matches … ”
Both statements are attributed to Coroner Cleland and both are incorrect.
If Cleland had been discussing the circumstances on the footing that the body found on the morning of 1st December was not of the man seen in the evening of the 30th of November.
If Cleland had noticed and drawn attention to the additional item Detective Sergeant Leane included in his deposition with regard to the items found in the dead man’s pockets.
Then he may have had to consider in his findings that the body expired elsewhere and was carried to where it was found.
Moreover, he may also have had to consider in his findings that the partly smoked cigarette found on the body was placed there by a party involved in its disposal.
When In 2003 Detective Sergeant Don O’Doherty produced a copy of a report* he had submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of the (Adelaide) CIB more than four decades earlier, Cleland or his coronial replacement might have thought it grounds enough to revive the case, which remains adjourned after seventy years.
*A witness reported seeing a man carrying a man along the beach on the night before the body was found.