Skip to content

A Final Twist

пожалуйста, otherwise known as English Boris has been enlightening everybody with the depth of his questions and cold-bloodiness of his responses where an answer hasn’t been to his liking. The vote around here is that he’s a retired barrister living in clifftop isolation in the north of Scotland, possible overlooking some tasty waves.

Check pic. Filth, eh?

We feel the envy, Boris, not to mention what the bloody temperature must be out there.

Back to it.

Boris was too late to snooker a copy of GF’s ‘The Unknown Man’ so is not in a position to discuss the account of a man seeing a man carrying a man along the foreshore of Somerton Beach on the night of November 30th, 1948.

This is easily fixed.

page 144 goes like this –

” .. and after reading various stories about the ‘Somerton Body’ he thought it may be of interest to the police so he decided to advise them.

In company with the witness I went for a drive in the area. He showed me the route he travelled and he believed the position he saw the man carrying the other man was in the vicinity of The Broadway* or thereabouts. He did say that it was not at the ‘dugouts’ but they were walking along Somerton Beach towards them. He was not able to walk along the foreshore to get his bearings.

This information caused me to re-examine the evidence given at the inquest. Obviously the medical experts were having difficulties supporting their opinions based on the suggestion that the deceased had remained in the same position from 7 p.m. until the following morning.

The lividity above the neck and ears raised questions about the position of the deceased when he died. Concerns were also expressed about the absence of vomit on the body or at the scene.

Revisiting the evidence leaves the finding of the inquest open still.”

Gerry Feltus.


18 Comments Post a comment
  1. пожалуйста #

    First thoughts: so this chap comes forward in ’59, a decade after the fact, to report something he and his fellow witnesses at the time held to be both odd and relevant but also so plainly, obviously visible that they assume others would have reported it. Yet, these four witnesses never at the time pick up a copy of the Advertiser or another rag, read the latest breathless copy about leads and breakthroughs, and think: “Hang on, why’s there no mention of the guy brazenly carrying a body around? Loads of people must have seen that. The cops are missing a bloody obvious lead. I think we’d better phone the local constabulary”.

    Instead, 11 years later, one of the witnesses provides a report to a Detective who is not (and never was) involved in the investigation. In this report, the witness can remember the time of the event: 10pm. But when Feltus “identifies and locates” (MO not disclosed) the witness in 2003, the witness can no longer recall the time of the incident.

    You wouldn’t have to be a barrister to conclude that this isn’t going to make for a great witness.

    April 3, 2020
    • ‘What can I say, your Honour, I only know what I know.’

      April 3, 2020
    • sande4s #

      Timely the mention of the thousands of returning servicemen; reminded me of the thousands who didn’t and what then became of their new Stamina worsted wool suits and trousers along with other pre service clothing. So yesterday I went shopping and I come up with a deal more than I was expecting actually, for I came up with extensive, one stop advertising that some old time Keane researcher most likely put together, then forgot to tell us SM Armchairos. There are menswear outfitters, second hand stores, oddment discounters, disposal and remnants supplies from Cairns to Perth and all points hell west & crooked in between from the thirties, through the war years and continuing to mid fifties. Advertising includes all the Stamina styles in full graphic description and state of repair etc.. I’m talking of ads in the hundreds and all bundled together for anyone with time or inclination to check them out. I did and I’m just about firm in my belief that SMs stuff was purchased from amongst this lot.

      April 3, 2020
      • Including the laundry bag ? That makes it three of a kind in a yard high pile of second hand clothing.

        April 3, 2020
  2. пожалуйста #

    “… which is indeed all you can be expected to know.

    Except that you assumed at the time that others would also “know”, as this event was so public and visible. Would you care to speculate as to why no one else came forward with the same sighting, contrary to even your own expectation?

    I put it to you that, in truth, you can not be certain of the date, time and other details of your sighting after the intervening years and that – understandably, given the interest the case has generated and the fascination it continues to hold – you have only now and in your own mind inflated the significance of this event and associated it with the case. And that the lack of corraborative evidence suggests as much”.

    April 3, 2020
    • Go back some. The witness came forward in 1959. He was specific. He had company who may well have confirmed his account. He gave a statement. Feltus found him believable. And the incident wasn’t the front page news you imagine it to be … and as far as the police personnel were concerned, this was not long after Australia welcomed back thousands of ex-servicemen into society.
      Put yourself there, Boris, if you can.

      April 3, 2020
  3. пожалуйста #

    That’s something I can’t hope to do with anything but poetic license. So we’re back at speculative fiction / fictional speculation. Which is fine.

    The sighting is obviously of interest. But what bugs me is simply this:

    You saw something unusual and recalled it. You immediately deemed it relevant when you heard about the case, only a day (or a few days at most) later. You discussed reporting it with other witnesses, but dismissed the idea because others are likely to report it.

    Why then was the sighting apparently not reported by others?

    Some possible answers:

    1) it was not reported because it didn’t happen
    2) it was not reported because it didn’t happen on that day or at that time or at that place
    3) it was reported and deemed irrelevant by police
    4) it was reported and the parties seen were eliminated by police from the enquiry
    5) it was reported and the evidence was suppressed by police.

    But in the case of all of the above: why did you wait until 1959 to come forward?

    April 3, 2020
    • You could apply the same logic to the fact that nobody reported a body by the steps before 7:30 pm and nobody reported a body by the steps after 8:00 pm, despite, as PC Moss stated, it was a warm night and knowing the neighbourhood, he thought that there would have been quite a few people about.

      April 3, 2020
  4. пожалуйста #

    Fair point.

    But the fact remains: the “body” was seen by multiple witnesses, albeit at around 7.30-8pm. He was arguably a less arresting sight than the shoulder-carry duo and he was (correct me if I’m wrong here) at the quieter end of the beach. And yet he was seen and noted by multiple witnesses who reported contemporaneously.

    In stark contrast, the peculiar shoulder-carrying duo, further north, were not seen by any other witnesses. This sighting was first reported a decade after the event. Somebody needs to corroborate that sighting, placing it at that time, on that day. Otherwise it’s hearsay.

    April 3, 2020
    • ‘Multiple’ is only three witnesses, Strapps and Neil, then Lyons. And you have misinterpreted the meaning of hearsay. He saw it, he reported it. No third party involved.

      April 3, 2020
      • пожалуйста #

        OK, a “gotcha”. Maybe I over-reached on that one.

        But I’d say that it might wander perilously close to hearsay, depending on how you read Feltus’ page 143. To paraphrase: in 2003 O’Doherty produced a copy of “a report” he had “submitted” to the officer-in-charge of CIB. On reflection, I can’t decide whether that means he passed on a statement (evidence) or a report he had compiled on the back of a chat with the witness (getting close to hearsay?).

        And remember: the SM “body” witnesses gave evidence in person and under oath. Different ballgame altogether.

        April 3, 2020
        • A report is exactly what it says it is. And there’s only the one ball game going on here, old mate, and that’s keeping the Somerton Man jive alive. You wanna talk about the tools next ?

          April 3, 2020
          • пожалуйста #

            A report is not a witness statement then? Not given, typed up, reviewed and signed? Is there one of THOSE in the files?

            In the absence of independent corroboration, in my view: the problem here is not significance. The problem here is weight. And this one’s fly, Pete.

            Tools, then. Yes, let’s… they are a tantalising glimpse into a man’s life – or so we are led to expect by proverbs. And by Mr. Steve Albini of Chicago, who once sang:

            “A man is known by his tools
            I earn my keep with my tools
            Fools, you fools, you fools, you fools
            You will not touch my tools”

            But where to start?

            April 3, 2020
            • Yes it is, all of that, filed and forgotten. Tools next. Hold your fire, Boris, prepare thyself for ‘The Dude47’ He strikes terror in the hearts of non-believers. In the meantime I have another life to live, plus dinner.

              April 3, 2020
  5. пожалуйста #

    I was listening to a recent interview with one of the investigating officers in the Isdal Woman case.

    This is a fairly well known Jane Doe case from Bergen (Norway) in 1970. There are striking parallels between it and SM, so they are often connected.

    But that’s not why I bring this up.

    In the interview, the officer addresses a theory that Isdal Woman’s place of death and deposition site (she was found partially burned, in a remote and inaccessible mountain location) were different.

    He refutes this on the basis of research that shows no human body (I assume: corpse) is known to have been manually carried over 75 metres from scene of crime to deposition site. He implies that this is based on a comprehensive (world wide?) study.

    I’ve tried to google for this research, but had no luck. But if this is accurate, does it impact on the likelihood of the sighting being related to SM and the location where he was found?

    April 9, 2020
    • That would depend on the size, location and timing of his sampling .. the US alone had over 15,000 murders in 2018

      April 9, 2020
      • пожалуйста #

        Yeah, it was a startling statistic (how would you know!?), but perhaps useful as a guide to structure our expectations of MOs. The implication was that he was citing published research rather than his own work.

        How far are “The Dugouts” (our nearest reference point?) from the foot of the steps below the Children’s Home?

        April 9, 2020
        • Wait one, I’ve asked the question elsewhere.

          April 9, 2020

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s