Tamam Shud: The Somerton Man Mystery

Forensic pathologist Shelley Robertson’s analysis of the autopsy

Can death due to ‘natural causes’ be excluded?

I find the pathologist’s eagerness to exclude natural causes as the cause of death somewhat disconcerting. From the snippets of the pathology report I have seen, there is significant pathology present, that is, englarged spleen (3 times the normal size). If it is really this big, it suggests that the deceased may have had an underlying haematological condition or some strange infectious disease. Then there is the bleeding into the stomach. The mucosa is described as ‘congested’ which is a very nonspecific finding and if it really was due to the irritant effects of some ingested toxin, one would expect there to be perhaps involvement of the oesophagus or some evidence of vomiting (not the half-digested remains of the pastie sitting there). Many cardiac conditions are currently recognised as causing sudden death by producing a rapidly fatal cardiac arrhythmia (for example, QT syndrome). These were probably not recognised in the 1940s. I agree that the circumstances surrounding this man’s death make natural causes unlikely but I haven’t seen anything in the pathology comments to exclude natural causes so vehemently.

Red herrings

I see a few things again in the ‘pathology snippets’, which I think only have the potential to give misleading information. These include the description by the pathologist of ‘pupil size’ which really can’t be ascertained properly after death. Then there is the ‘high set calf and pointy toe stuff’ described by the taxidermist/death mask maker (and his qualifications in this area would be???). There is also mention of the deceased having ‘an athlete’s heart’ and ‘inflammation of the bowels’. Athlete’s can have considerably enlarged hearts which may, in themselves, cause an increased susceptibility to cardiac arrhythmia. But is this what the pathologist really said? And it would need to be confirmed by the weight and description of the heart. I don’t know what is meant by ‘inflammation of the bowels’ – this needs further description.

Toxicology

I recognise that the methods of detection used in those days were fairly primitive, but I think most commonly available poisons would have been able to be detected in the stomach if they had been ingested by mouth. It is not clear if blood was also tested. This would hopefully pick up injected compounds. The pathologist states there were no needle marks on the body (but then, he did such a great job of examining the clothing that he missed the bit of Tamam Shud paper – what else did he miss?).

The suggestion that the deceased was sitting still but able to move (witness accounts of arm moving and crossing/uncrossing legs) makes the short-acting anaesthetic agents, particularly barbiturates, pretty unlikely. I think the same applies for scopolamine and it should have been able to be detected if there was enough on board to cause death.

The late Justice John Harber Phillips (in his wisdom) says that death was due to digitalis (he also says that ‘the state of the liver would exclude insulin’ and I have no idea what he means there or how he manages to reach that conclusion). Again, I think if death was caused by ingestion of a cardiac glycoside such as digitalis, it should have been detected.

In summary, I don’t believe death due to natural causes can be ruled out in this case, and the notion that he died by poisoning is problematic to substantiate in the absence of any discernable poison, even given that testing in those times was fairly primitive compared to current technology available.