by boca on 6/19/14, 1:32 AM with 14 comments
by olalonde on 6/19/14, 4:20 AM
In November 2013, the family of "Jestyn" gave an interview to the Australian TV program 60 Minutes which was aired on 24 November. On the program, Kate Thomson, daughter of Jessica and Prosper Thomson, claims that her mother had told her that she had lied to police and that she did know the identity of the "Somerton Man" and that his identity was also "known to a level higher than the police force." She also stated that she believed her mother and the "Somerton Man" may have both been Russian spies, noting that her mother was a communist sympathizer and could speak Russian although she would not disclose to her daughter where she had learned it or why.
by ZoF on 6/19/14, 2:07 PM
Likely false.
Also interesting how that sideways '<' shape with an X through it appears to be the first character of the last line(rotated ninety degrees, much smaller and without the x).
Actually there is decided inconsistency with how he writes his "M's", "W's", and "I's".... And they all happen to be the first character... In the second to last line, there's a clearly written W, but the 'W' and 'M' from the first and second line respectively both appear to have the same symbol overlain as the final line starts with, albiet, once again, rotated...
If I were a wagering man, I would say that the X on the symbol (which is directly above an 'O') marks a ROT-value somehow, and that the first letter of each line references that symbol(or doesn't in the case of the second to last line) and the orientation of the symbol shifts the ROT value in some pre-determined manner.
If the X in that symbol is indeed referencing the "O" of the line below, it could make sense that that is the only line which isn't character rotated and therefore doesn't have the symbol appear at the beginning of the line in some manner.
>WRGOABABD
>MLIAOI(striked-through)
>WTBIMPANETP
>MLIABOAIAQC
>ITTMTSAMSTGAB
^That "I" is the rotated shape I'm talking about.
[0]-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taman_Shud_Case#mediaviewer/Fil...
by barking on 6/19/14, 9:34 AM
Also no mention of looking at his DNA?
by keithpeter on 6/19/14, 12:10 PM
OA mentions witnesses walking past assuming the victim was drunk and sleeping it off, and again seeing a man carried on another's shoulder and assuming it was a friend carrying a drunk colleague home.
Tells you a lot about the times (I grew up in UK near Liverpool 1970s/1980s and public drunkenness was basically not commented on then).
I think those activities in broad daylight would attract more attention now, despite our problems with binge drinking in early hours of morning. I've seen local police checking out walking drunks to make sure they are ok and have a plan to get home.
by hawkharris on 6/19/14, 3:16 AM
by ForHackernews on 6/19/14, 4:55 AM
by kovrik on 6/19/14, 4:01 AM
I like wikipedia's more (btw it is also known as Taman Shud case).
First 4 paragraphs:
>Most murders aren’t that difficult to solve.
>Of course, there are always a handful of cases that don’t fit the template
>They certainly were baffled, though, in Adelaide
>a story that began simply
>has bec0me ever more mysterious.
>In fact, this case (which remains, theoretically at least, an active investigation) is so opaque
>add up to one of the world’s most perplexing cold cases.
>It may be the most mysterious of them all.
Why do you need those four paragraphs full of buzzwords?
Just tell us the story!
