A photographic reconstruction of SM’s body was made by the police ..
Clive has been in touch, he is intrigued by the mention of a ‘photographic reconstruction’ of SM’s body made by the police and as reported in the Advertiser on December 4 1948. (see below)
Are these the reconstructed photos? The ones taken by James Durham on December 3rd? And what exactly needed reconstruction? SM didn’t appear to have suffered any facial damage when found and the autopsy that was concluded on December 2nd had Dr Dwyer replacing the skull piece and drawing the hair back to simulate its original position. No police involvement there. And the police weren’t the ones who dressed the body back into the clothes he was wearing when found either (Const. Sutherland excepted).
So what were they up to?
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/43794087?searchTerm=Somerton%20man
Note: reconstruct means to rebuild something after it has been damaged or destroyed ..
The Somerton Man .. 
Gordon, please take note, you have no copyright on the facts of the case .. so take a break, have a few Chrissy drinks and bugger off. You and Sanders are about as useful as two boils on a bum.
LikeLike
“They” were covering their backsides in case they got caught. Then they can say the face was too decomposed to publish in the newspapers and would cause readers some distress. This reconstruction of his face is as close as we could get to what he looks like and have people come forward and identify him. Which is cover-up speak for we used Boxall’s face.
LikeLike
Gordon, Cracker, let’s pull it in close. You may well have discussed the subject of this post many times in the past ten years but the fact is old sport, new readers don’t know this and they haven’t the patience to wade back through your thousand of self-aggrandising posts in the hope of finding them .. now why don’t you stop your bloody harrumphing and do something useful, like finding some more micro-writing or whatever.
LikeLike
GC doesn’t know about relay logic circuits or Boolean algebra
LikeLike
Why “photographic reconstruction of the body”? How much of the “body” were the public suppose to view? I suppose the authorities instructed the newspapers to only use the word “body”, when the true “reconstruction” related to his actual face/head. And, if any member of the public raised questions about the SM’s face/head, to the media, I’m sure they would have kept it under wraps.
LikeLike
Clive I think “photographic reconstructions” were fairly common in such cases. This one is a dead ringer for John Sanders – don’t have nightmares!
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/127307542?searchTerm=%22photographic%20reconstruction%22
LikeLike