‘It was later established …’ Four differing accounts of the contents found in the Somerton Man’s pockets.
‘The cigarette packet was Army Club but the contents were Kensitas, a different brand, there was also found a box of Bryant and May’s matches, 1/4 full, a packet half full of juicy fruit chewing gum, 2 combs, Professor Cleland found a slip of paper bearing the words “Tamam Shud.” That was what was found on the body.’ 1949 Inquest Papers – DS Leane
‘It was later established that the following items were located with the deceased: a handkerchief, a pair of underpants (Jockey type), a singlet, a train ticket, a bus ticket, a part packet of Juicy Fruit chewing gum, two combs, a quarter-full box of Bryant & May’s matches and an Army Club Cigarette Packet, containing seven ‘Kensitas’ cigarettes, which was a different brand.’ Feltus p154.
‘Moss then searched the clothing of the deceased and located certain items. His evidence at the Coronial Inquest referred to the following items in particular, “I particularly noted a railway ticket to Henley Beach, a bus ticket (88708), a metal comb, chewing gum and some cigarettes in a packet. I did not compare the cigarettes with the one that was partly smoked.” Feltus p40
’I searched the clothing, found a railway ticket to Henley Beach, also a bus ticket, a tramway bus ticket. There were cigarettes on the body, which were in a packet. I did not compare them to the one that was partly smoked. The packet produced looks like the one I found. The comb produced was on the body, also the chewing gum and metal comb. The bus ticket produced and the railway ticket produced are similar to the tickets I found on the body. I did not find the slip of paper with the words “Tamam Shad (sic)”. 1949 Inquest Papers – PC Moss.
The Somerton Man 
The most recent Australian story was pretty much in line with every other main stream media story on this subject. Nothing to see here.
What do you deduce, dude, after reading the three quotes above?
Why was it ‘later established’-how much ‘later’. Why are a pair of underpants classed as ‘located’-wasn’t he wearing any? Does this mean that he had them in his pocket?
Only what Clive is referring to “later established” he had a singlet and jocks? seems odd. Also the fact that he has 2 combs one being “metal” is curious. What’s got your ears pricked up PB?
Feltus’ play with words. It’s well known that a policeman taking a statement can, if it suits his purpose make it look better or worse for the individual making the statement … I know this from first-hand experience on what was a minor matter some years ago. Feltus, with his great experience at apprehending criminals and years of service at SAPOL is having a bit of a lend here as well as tossing Moss under a bus.
So, you get a sense that PC Moss only a junior constable, therefore his observations/notes could not be 100% reliable. And Feltus, with others pooh-poohed Moss, despite Moss being the first on the scene.
Moss had the gonads to take a newspaper interview where he directly contradicted a much senior policeman’s sworn evidence.
So, Moss stood his ground, despite the implications for his future career in the force? A man who would not be brow beaten.
You’re normally the one selling the police incompetence – perhaps that’s what he’s covering. Crime scene and body hadn’t been processed properly, and it wasn’t until the defectives were called in (in January the following year?) that they started to ask “Where’s his clothes/posessions?”
Feltus’ wording is simply being kind and covering the fact that they’d been a bit slack with the original pick up because – as has been repeated elsewhere, a body on the beach wasn’t really suspicious in and of itself. Got a funny idea that Leane’s interview with Littlemore had hints of the same – sort of an undertone of “it would have been nice if the actual crime scene had been processed properly, but by the time wwe were called in it was a bit late” (although he also mentions some discovery of a syringe nearby – which has never made much sense to me for a whole host of reasons)
Incompetence? Or something else?