SA The Somerton Body Case ... 1948. Australia's most profound mystery.

[tomsbytwo]

Good morning,

I've been researching the case of an unidentified man found dead on Somerton Beach seventy years ago on December 1st 1948, and have a question about coroner Cleland's findings.

I quote from the coronial papers:

"I have been discussing the circumstances on the footing that the body found on the morning of the 1st December was that of the man seen in the evening on the 30th November. But there is no proof that this was the case.” (Coroner Cleland)

However ....

There was evidence produced (by deposition) at the inquest that proved the body found on the 1st of December was not the body seen on November 30th. Cleland chose to ignore it.

Where do we stand on this?

Many thanks

peteb

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

I'm not familiar with the case, so my answers are in general terms only.

The tendering of evidence is not proof. To keep this simple, we'll discard things like forgeries and creations. Generally in a hearing various items are tendered into evidence by the parties if they survive any challenges as to their validity - for example, a party may challenge the evidence as being hearsay.

It is then up to the judge, or in this case the coroner, to determine the 'weight' of that evidence or, in other words, what its worth is. Some forms of evidence will always be better than others. Here's a useful example: We have an eyewitness who gives testimony in the witness box that he saw the accused driving a blue car at midday in the city. That's evidence (in simple terms). But, we also have surveillance camera footage from a local Council which clearly shows the accused standing next to a red car at the same time in the suburbs. That's also evidence. Ignoring any number of possible ways to chip away at either of them, the video footage is going to have more weight - because it is capable of being observed by everyone, whereas the eye witness testimony is based on a memory that cannot be observed.

In the example given, you refer to a 'deposition'. A deposition is sworn testimony verbally given by person outside of court. The witness could be untruthful, they could be mistaken, there could be any number of reasons not to believe them. Accordingly, it appears the coroner has determined that witness' evidence to not have sufficient weight to meet the required standard of proof.

 

[Scruff]

There was evidence produced (by deposition) at the inquest that proved the body found on the 1st of December was not the body seen on November 30th.

What was the actual evidence? If it was just a witness statement, then that doesn't prove anything.
There were several witnesses who stated that they believe it was the same man that they saw in the evening of the 30th and that he hadn't even moved.

@Rob Legat - SBPL: This case is actually pretty famous - a man found on the beach near Glenelg SA in 1948, never identified, cause of death inconclusive, tonnes of conspiracy theories, including one that he was a Russian spy. Officially it's a cold case, but there are still several people privately investigating it, particulary in regard to trying to identifying him. There's been a few stories in the news in recent times and there's also a Wiki page. It's a very interesting read, especially all the stuff about the paper found in a hidden pocket that ended up being from an obscure poetry book. From there, the story gets into secret codes and all kinds of stuff. It's pretty fascinating stuff.

These are probably the best primers if you want to learn what the fuss is all about and why the case is so notorious:
Tamam Shud case - Wikipedia
Who is the Somerton Man? Clues that could provide an answer
How the Somerton Man played cupid from the grave

 

[tomsbytwo]

Thanks for the responses.

SB - we have an eyewitness's deposition in the form of a sworn statement submitted to the inquest.
Scruff - the eyewitness's deposition indicated the body seen alive on November 30th was wearing striped trousers.

 

[Scruff]

Actually, if you read it again,
this:

I have been discussing the circumstances on the footing that the body found on the morning of the 1st December was that of the man seen in the evening on the 30th November. But there is no proof that this was the case.” (Coroner Cleland)

and this:

There was evidence produced (by deposition) at the inquest that proved the body found on the 1st of December was not the body seen on November 30th.

are drawing the same conclusion - that there is no proof that it was the same man.

I think that the question you should be asking is why this seems to indicate that the witnesses statements from those who came forward very early on appear to have been discarded - the ones who said that they believe it was the same man. I always thought that this was the conclusion that was reached - it's certainly the way it's been reported in the media over the years.

 

[tomsbytwo]

Actually, if you read it again,
this:

and this:

are drawing the same conclusion - that there is no proof that it was the same man.

I think that the question you should be asking is why this seems to indicate that the witnesses statements from those who came forward very early on appear to have been discarded - the ones who said that they believe it was the same man. I always thought that this was the conclusion that was reached - it's certainly the way it's been reported in the media over the years.

The one witness who believed it was the same man was walking along the shoreline with his wife in the evening and again the following morning ...

 

[Scruff]

Okay, so there's conflicting witness statements then, which would be why coroner states "But there is no proof that this was the case."

Some witnesses who came forward after the body was found stated that they were sure that the clothes were the same and also that the body was in the exact same position as when they saw it. Some also pointed out that they thought he was unusually dressed for someone on a beach. Those people in particular noticed the clothes.

The coroner obviously made statements based on the "footing" or belief that it was the same man. But when it comes to conclusions, he must base those on facts, so with conflicting witness statements, I would say that he has provided his opinions, then clarified that there was no proof. In other words, he can't provide a conclusion in this regard, only a theory.

 

[tomsbytwo]

Apologies for the double post.
Scruff - the problem we have is that in almost every theory about this case, whether it be one of conspiracy or suicide, murder or whatever else, the theorists believe the body seen alive in the evening was in fact dying and was found dead the following morning.
The deposition by an eyewitness suggests otherwise.

 

[Scruff]

I get what you're saying, but you're focusing on the one witness who believes it was not the same man. Other witnesses (more than one) believed that it was the same man.

In regard to this:

The one witness who believed it was the same man was walking along the shoreline with his wife in the evening and again the following morning

There was more than one witness that came forward, however not all may have made it to the Coronial Inquest.

If several witnesses say a similar thing, then one witness says something different (in this case the striped pants), then there wouldn't be much point in including all the witnesses in the Inquiry because it is already known that there is a conflict in what they are saying. You therefore only need the most detailed statement from each side to show that the conflict exists.

From the Coroner's point of view, additional statements probably wouldn't have provided anything new and therefore wouldn't have alleviated the doubt that exists because of the "striped pants" statement. Therefore for the purpose of the inquest, you don't need any more than the two statements, but the Police definately spoke to more than two witnesses.

From memory, the couple walking on the beach were the ones who walked toward the man and concluded that he was drunk on the 30th, then reported it the following morning when they saw him again in exactly the same spot.

It's also worth noting, that not all the witnesses saw the man on both days - some only saw him on the 30th and came forward when the Police put the call out for witnesses after the body was found.

 

[tomsbytwo]

Scruff - this is all we have. Taken from their depositions.

1 Harold Rolfe North (Senior porter, cloak room) – “The (luggage) ticket was issued in respect of a suitcase, not by me.”

2 Douglas George Townsend (Student) – “I could not remember the man to whom I sold the (train) ticket from the photos in the paper.”

3 Edmund Leslie Hall (Claims Officer’s Assistant) – “The bus ticket produced appears to be a ticket issued by a conductor employed by the MTT.”

4 William West (Recorder) – “It is my duty to be aware of times of arrival and departure of trains.”

5 Arthur Anzac Holdernesse (Tram conductor) – “I cannot remember having seen a man like the plaster cast in Court.”

6 John Bain Lyons (Jewellery store proprietor) – “I could not see his face from that distance. I did not see his face until the following day.”

7 Olive Constance Neill (telephonist, seated with GK Strapps) – ” We sat there, and naturally did not notice him very much.”

8 Gordon Kenneth Strapps (Inspector, seated with OC Neill) – “I could only see him from the waist downwards.”