Skip to content

Mr Gordon Cramer – five of his theories finally exposed for what they are. Demonstrably wrong.

“Welcome to the leading, factual blog with a 7 year history of finding new evidence on this Australian Cold Case.”

That’s Mr Gordon Cramer’s immodest headline to his self-acclaimed factual blog. We see it differently.


(1) Reverse images and false facts.

Mr Cramer has always held that the code found on the back cover was an indent caused by someone using a pencil on the back fly leaf.


“These were indentations and they came through to this page from the back leaf of the Rubaiyat where the letters and lines were first written. There is a Police report that states that the back leaf of the book was missing. The letters and numbers were only visible under UV lighting and even then a special fluid is believed to have been used to enhance the markings.” Cramer

This is an impossible scenario as writing on a right-oriented back fly leaf would produce a reverse image on a left-oriented back cover.


(2) Mr Cramer disputes Feltus

Upon learning of his grave error (through reading this post), Mr Cramer immediately changed tack and his current position is that the code might have been written on another article placed on top of the back cover, disputing Gerry Feltus, who wrote :

“Some sources have suggested that there were indents on the rear of the Rubayat and were possibly caused when the book was used as a support to write on another piece of paper. The letters were exposed when the police rubbed a lead pencil across the indents. The information is hearsay and cannot be confirmed.” Feltus.

(3) Litter.

This is almost Chaplinesque.

For many years Mr Cramer insisted that every item in the Somerton Man’s suitcase was litter, that is to say everything was put in there by persons unknown in order to interfere with the investigation. Throw them off their stride so to speak .. not that SAPOL needed any help in that respect.

Then ..

.. when some bright spark found mention in Strapp’s Deposition about the striped trousers being worn by the live fellow he was watching in the evening, which was in direct contradiction to the plain brown job the dead fellow was found wearing the next morning, Mr Cramer took a walk in his garden and after some deep thinking came up with the proposition that, yes, the evening fellow was wearing stripes, no problem with that, but later that night he was carried from the beach by several people and taken to some unknown place for a pasty dinner and a quick change of duds and shirt before being ferried back to the beach and laid out in the same place, this time as stiff as a board. Pasties can do that.

And where did these people get the new duds and shirt I hear you ask?

No problem for Mr Cramer. They had some the exact size needed lying around just for the occasion.

But, how come these new duds and shirt were repaired with the same thread as that found on the Barbour spool in the suitcase I hear you ask?

Simple. ‘Consider this’ wrote Mr Cramer some months ago, how easy it would have been for someone to travel back to the Adelaide Railway Station that night, get someone to unlock the luggage office, find the suitcase, open it and grab the spool of Barbour thread and a needle then make a few repairs on the new duds and shirt, put the thread back into the case, ask the luggage guy to put it back up into the rack before locking up the office and remember to forget it ever happened, they told him,  just in case the police come around later on asking questions.
‘Fifteen minutes, tops,’ said Mr Cramer. Job done.

But, I hear you ask again, wasn’t everything in the case supposed be litter?


Next question?

(4) Mr Cramer disputes Feltus for the second time.

“What Leane saw through his magnifying glass were pencil ‘markings’ not pencil writing, i.e. indentations.” Mr Cramer

“Through a large magnifying glass he (Leane) also saw capital letters written in faint pencil on the back of the book.” Feltus.

What we have here is Mr Cramer disputing Gerry Feltus’ account of what Leane said he saw on the back of the Rubaiyat.

Not only that, Mr Cramer commented that he had discussed this matter many times with Feltus, who, he said, agreed with the change of narrative.

I find that impossible to believe.

(5) Shrinking bodies and saddle noses.

Meet Pavel Fedosimov. He’s the Somerton Man according to Mr G Cramer. He’s about 6’1 and has a distinctive ‘saddle nose’.

Meet Pavel Fedosimov. He’s the Somerton Man according to Mr G Cramer. He’s about 5’11. Mr Cramer’s explanation for the loss of two inches being that dead bodies are known to shrink.

(6) Were any matches found on the body?

No, and this newspaper interview with PC Moss proves it

… but everybody says there was. This is the one question I’ve not put to Mr Cramer, maybe someone else can, and good luck getting your comment through.

No comments yet

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