One minor glitch that I had tried to correct some time ago is that Charles Richard Webb was born 25/1/1918 if we check out his BS and Aust. Passport issued 1967 thereabouts.
Here we have Stuart Webb insisting that the family shot was taken in 1929, others reckon it was about ten years later, saying it’s unlikely the lady tagged as Amy is the mother of Amy. Two things come to mind, if the shot was taken in 1929 then that was the year mother Amy died after a long illness – here’s me, no doctor, thinking she looks pretty chipper in the photo. Thing two is where Amy’s daughter Amy on the big family day?
It’s a young girl, Doris Amy, Charles Richard Webb’s sister. He’s 16 months older than her. Their mother died June 1929 and she was about 34, a middle age woman, not the young girl in the photo, which was taken after their mother died.
If you are able to get a photo of Carl Webb from Stuart, and one that lets us see his height, you will be moving towards verifying what you say about the first photo. The second photo is Charles Richard Webb
Shabs, I knew you were around, and you better than most exposed the published date of the family photo as being lest than honest. Champion is what you is.
Can’t make sense of your Keane query Clive. Care to clarify what it might have to do with the “How some folks see it …” prompt or SM’s identity per se.
Another shot in the dark but, “The Herald” 18 Jun 1934 P8, mentions that a Leo Kean, aged 7, of 7 Greaves St, Werribee was shot in the eye. If the above photo was taken in 1939, that would make Leo 12 years old?
Just an idea that possible further info on a member of the Kean/e family might lead to a link. Yes, I know, highly unlikely. About as likely as finding the SM’s hat in a Salvo’s store.
Clive. Well wild coincidence does occasionally happen. Take your wounded boy Leo Kean for one; he lived bout a block and a half from Eliza Webb’s brother Jim at Werribee. That’s also the site where her husband Dick’s birthday bash went down just two years later. But we all know of course that none of this should concern we Carl Webb doubters in the least.
Whoops. Robert Henry Grace was Eliza Webb’s bro., James was his second son, the butcher, after Robert John the soldier cum green grocer etc., who appears in Dick Webb’s Werribee birthday pic beside his aging dad. That sounds about right.
One could well understand a cosmetic face over touch-up to conceal blemishes ie., zits and mozzy bites etc. with mortuary mascara or powcer rouge; but “photoraphic reconstruction of the (whole) body”, bearing in mind no injuries were reported, seems a little overdone. By the way no pics of the body itself ever came to light far as that goes.
The question is and always has been why the need for a “Photographic reconstruction of the body”? Why couldn’t the body be photographed as found? Was it a ‘bad’ choice of words or, was there something about the body found on the beach the authorities needed to take care of?
What’s even more peculiar chappies is, that Durham’s own evidence to the Inquest gives no hint whatsoever of how he prepped the whole body for the photo sitting, he merely states that he took shots full face and side on.
“Blood on the shirt’s shoulder”, no wound/marks on the body? Perhaps Durham’s evidence was pre-vetted by Cleland, another brow beating job, perhaps? And, like PC Moss wished to keep a clean sheet?
Let’s not forget that Durham had his session with SM on third Dec. 1948, whereas Cleland didn’t get to see the body until at least March 1949. So any blood on SM’s shirt should have been mentioned by then. Don’t forget that he was found wearing a separate collar white and coat shirt, so it’s likely that a change of clothing had occurred in the interim. Might as well mention that Durham claims that he personally submitted the prints and photos including the Tamam Shud slip (?) to all interstate and New Zealand police indices plus major bureaus overeas with negat8ve results.
The Somerton Man .. 
One minor glitch that I had tried to correct some time ago is that Charles Richard Webb was born 25/1/1918 if we check out his BS and Aust. Passport issued 1967 thereabouts.
LikeLike
Here we have Stuart Webb insisting that the family shot was taken in 1929, others reckon it was about ten years later, saying it’s unlikely the lady tagged as Amy is the mother of Amy. Two things come to mind, if the shot was taken in 1929 then that was the year mother Amy died after a long illness – here’s me, no doctor, thinking she looks pretty chipper in the photo. Thing two is where Amy’s daughter Amy on the big family day?
See family pic.
LikeLike
It’s a young girl, Doris Amy, Charles Richard Webb’s sister. He’s 16 months older than her. Their mother died June 1929 and she was about 34, a middle age woman, not the young girl in the photo, which was taken after their mother died.
If you are able to get a photo of Carl Webb from Stuart, and one that lets us see his height, you will be moving towards verifying what you say about the first photo. The second photo is Charles Richard Webb
LikeLike
Shabs, I knew you were around, and you better than most exposed the published date of the family photo as being lest than honest. Champion is what you is.
LikeLike
Doubtful if Stuart has any photos because Carl Webb was the black sheep of the family and not in with the rest of them
Stuart’s not likely to give himself away that he made a mistake
Anyway, give it your best shot
LikeLike
Leo K, I wonder if that’s the same young fella as a, Leo P. Keane winning a scholarship award in Technical Schools? Per “The Argus” 19 Jan 1929 P.14.
LikeLike
Can’t make sense of your Keane query Clive. Care to clarify what it might have to do with the “How some folks see it …” prompt or SM’s identity per se.
LikeLike
Another shot in the dark but, “The Herald” 18 Jun 1934 P8, mentions that a Leo Kean, aged 7, of 7 Greaves St, Werribee was shot in the eye. If the above photo was taken in 1939, that would make Leo 12 years old?
LikeLike
…only if you promise not to interupt the flow PB.
LikeLike
dusty:
Just an idea that possible further info on a member of the Kean/e family might lead to a link. Yes, I know, highly unlikely. About as likely as finding the SM’s hat in a Salvo’s store.
LikeLike
Clive. Well wild coincidence does occasionally happen. Take your wounded boy Leo Kean for one; he lived bout a block and a half from Eliza Webb’s brother Jim at Werribee. That’s also the site where her husband Dick’s birthday bash went down just two years later. But we all know of course that none of this should concern we Carl Webb doubters in the least.
LikeLike
Whoops. Robert Henry Grace was Eliza Webb’s bro., James was his second son, the butcher, after Robert John the soldier cum green grocer etc., who appears in Dick Webb’s Werribee birthday pic beside his aging dad. That sounds about right.
LikeLike
How some other folks see it …
“Photographic reconstruction of the body”
How convenient
LikeLike
One could well understand a cosmetic face over touch-up to conceal blemishes ie., zits and mozzy bites etc. with mortuary mascara or powcer rouge; but “photoraphic reconstruction of the (whole) body”, bearing in mind no injuries were reported, seems a little overdone. By the way no pics of the body itself ever came to light far as that goes.
LikeLike
No. 1
The question is and always has been why the need for a “Photographic reconstruction of the body”? Why couldn’t the body be photographed as found? Was it a ‘bad’ choice of words or, was there something about the body found on the beach the authorities needed to take care of?
LikeLike
Cleland noted there was blood on his shirt’s shoulder ..
LikeLike
What’s even more peculiar chappies is, that Durham’s own evidence to the Inquest gives no hint whatsoever of how he prepped the whole body for the photo sitting, he merely states that he took shots full face and side on.
LikeLike
“Blood on the shirt’s shoulder”, no wound/marks on the body? Perhaps Durham’s evidence was pre-vetted by Cleland, another brow beating job, perhaps? And, like PC Moss wished to keep a clean sheet?
LikeLike
Let’s not forget that Durham had his session with SM on third Dec. 1948, whereas Cleland didn’t get to see the body until at least March 1949. So any blood on SM’s shirt should have been mentioned by then. Don’t forget that he was found wearing a separate collar white and coat shirt, so it’s likely that a change of clothing had occurred in the interim. Might as well mention that Durham claims that he personally submitted the prints and photos including the Tamam Shud slip (?) to all interstate and New Zealand police indices plus major bureaus overeas with negat8ve results.
LikeLike
Cleland did ask in his notes “who undressed him?”
LikeLike