Skip to content

Daniel Vorshart’s work has unfortunate consequences


Daniel Voshart is described as a cinematographer and he has achieved a quick notoriety for his work (pictured) on the Somerton Man, where we now have him looking like a very personable chap with a reassuring smile and warm eyes. You could imagine him as a good hearted second-hand car dealer with only your interests in mind.

Voshart’s admirable work has re-ignited quite a lot of interest in the Somerton Man case, which is pleasing in some ways but not so in others.


For instance:

The Daily Mail Australia published an article by Isabelle Stackpool on October 11th.


Say hi to Isabelle (pic lifted from linkedin)

Isabelle, like so many mainstream journalists doesn’t have a lot of time to waste on research for her articles, being saddled with strict reporting deadlines and editors with only a fleeting interest in her work.

Unfortunately, these constrictions usually result in a published article doing more harm than good.

Isabelle’s piece falls into this category. Which is a shame because she looks like the kind of person who enjoys her work.

But she got it very wrong in this case.

According to Isabelle Stackpool.

(1) The Somerton Man was found fully dressed in a business suit. (Wrong: he was wearing brown faun trousers and a double breasted coat)

(2) The labels were cut off his suit. (Wrong:Tags were cut off from the clothing in the suitcase)

(3) The police found the Rubiayat nearby. (Wrong: Chemist Freeman found the Rubaiyat in his car parked nearby.)

(4) The code was was found on the inside back cover. (Wrong: the code was found written on the back of the book)

(5) There was an unlit cigarette on his chest. (Wrong: it was tucked under his chin)

(6) Matches were found on his body. (Wrong: no matches were found on the body, refer PC Moss’ newspaper interview posted here)

(7) The suitcase was found by railway staff. (Wrong: DS Leane made the enquiries that resulted in finding the suitcase)

(8) Scissors, shoe polish, a tie, an ashtray, spoon and toothbrush amongst other things were found by railway staff. (Wrong: SAPOL found the above)

(9) There was a deliberate absence of identifying material.(Wrong: two articles of clothing and a laundry bag found in the suitcase were marked as belonging to a T Keane(e)

(10) The Somerton Man was found with a coded message in his jacket.(Wrong: the coded message was found written on the back of the Rubaiyat found by Chemist Freeman)

See what I mean?


7 Comments Post a comment
  1. Clive #

    Obviously, Isabelle has not read Gerry’s book, perhaps Gerry could give her a call?

    November 10, 2020
    • Derek Abbott posted this article by Stackpool up on his FB site, that’s where all the Somerton Man case experts gather, and wouldn’t you know it? Nobody noticed anything wrong.
      What do you put that down to? Here we are with a case that will not go away, one that is written about here and abroad year after year .. seen on You Tube channels, subjected to pod casts, talked about on the national news and half of what they say do or write is incorrect.
      Geez .. someone give me a soapbox, please!

      November 10, 2020
  2. Clive #

    Don’t need a soapbox, just announce a ‘stunning breakthrough’ and reiterate the know facts, if DA doesn’t like it, tough.

    November 10, 2020
  3. Devil's Advocate #

    1) different people have different definitions for business suit. I wouldn’t necessarily have called it that, but I don’t particularly object to that
    2) Suit had no labels, so someone infers “cut off” – a minor mistake at best – assuming, of course that we’re happy they were ripped not cut
    3) Glenelg is nearby Somerton – and you could even almost make a case it was found “nearby shortly after” (or even the following day, possibly). Just because the plods didn’t have it yet (and nobody understood the connection) doesn’t meam it wasn’t found
    4) I thought the TS was cut from the second-last page, so the code would be on the inside of the back cover
    5) Cigarette on the collar/on the chest – it’s not a massive difference
    6) Inquest: Although Moss doesn’t mention matches. Summary by coroner at beginning: “The only articles in the clothing were some cigarettes and matches….”; Leane’s testimony: “….packet was ‘Army Club’…..different brand, there was also found a box of Bryant and May’s matches……That was what was found on the body”.
    7) The suitcase was left in the railway station with the porter. Whether the D’s went and asked the railway employees if there was any unclaimed luggage, or whether they did it off their own volition they went into the backroom and “found” the suitcase. Misleading, perhaps, but not wrong.
    8) even more misleading, but given they found the suitcase you can attribute the find of its contents to them – to me this would depned on exactly how the article in question expressed it
    9) Do you think there was an accidental absence of identifying material? It doesn’t say “deliberate access of ANY [or ALL] identifying material”
    10) you win this one.

    Some points are perhaps misleading and embellished – but that’s no different to any other narrative floating around (including the official inquest, GF’s book, GC, DA, this site, NP, wikipedia, the Littlemore docos, or any of the other articles you can find on a range of Australian newspaper sites over the years or more recently on global paranormal sites). In fact, all you seem to be doing is assuming your theories are the 1 true font of knowledge…..

    November 11, 2020
    • Nicely argued, DA, appreciated. One question for you: do you think the fellow Lyons saw in the evening was the same man found dead in the morning?

      November 11, 2020
      • DA #

        At the risk of sitting on the fence, I’ll carefully say that we can’t prove it was. Certainly Lyons and Strapps seem like poor witnesses if it was. Neither of them was comfortable to say that the body was the man they had seen. Many people dismiss this as being because of the light (or lack of) that evening. But both of them had identified small details (colour of clothing, presence of flies, hand gestures, absence of cigarette, etc) that suggest visibility wasn’t an issue.
        Depending on exactly what their answers were when questioned, and exactly what the questions were depends on what we can infer from their reluctance to agree the body was that of the man who had been there the night before.

        November 17, 2020
        • Fair enough, we’ll settle for reasonable doubt … which is an improvement on coroner Cleland’s remarks.
          Let me know if you want to talk about the mysterious appearance of a box of Bryant and May matches …

          November 17, 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