I have reposted this item in the hope that it will clarify some of the questions and issues arising from the ABC interview today, September 2nd, 2022
When you read and view this post you will see that there are some significant differences between the Somerton Man Autopsy images and the images that according to Gerry Feltus, were taken just before Paul Lawson created the mold for the plaster bust of the Somerton Man. If, as Paul suggested, the skull of the man of whom he had made the bust had been changed over for whatever reason, then it gets even more complicated. That skull may not be that of the Somerton man but the rest of the body may be. More DNA testing is needed to clear that up but it can't be done by relying solely on the results from Colleen.
The main concern with the Carl Webb identification is not that the hair was from Carl Webb, it is related to Carl Webb being the Somerton Man. The only way that can be proven is via the dental chart which we know was taken by Dr. Dwyer at the original autopsy. Hence my comments that the exhumed remains need to be verified against that dental chart. If the dental chart doesn't match the exhumed remains, then just where is the body of the oerton Man
But even then there is another concern and that is that according to Paul Lawson when he went to the morgue to start work on the bust, 4 Detectives were there to help him. It is believed that Mr. Lawson's genealogy was checked and it was found that he was not in any way connected with Carl Webb. That leaves the genealogy of the 4 detectives that should be verified as well. because hair from their hands and arms may well have shed. As far as I am aware, that testing has not been done. What that means is that if one of those Detectives was related in some way to Carl Webb, then it could be that the hair samples examined by Colleen Fitzpatrick came from that Detective and not the body of whom the mold and plaster cast were made. It's a matter of crossing the Ts and dotting the Is.
If it is proven that the remains of the Somerton Man are a match for Carl Webb that's all to the good but it still does not mean that the man wasn't a spy. Who was he and what was he doing in Adelaide?
As for my comments on hair Shaft DNA, here's the post with the relevant evidence:
I hope that clarifies things at least a little, please ask if you have any further questions.
SCROLL DOWN FOR THE LATEST CARL WEBB PIC
A Warning, this post contains a number of photographs of deceased people, some may find it upsetting.
FROM THE UNKOWN MAN BOOK
BY EX-DETECTIVE SERGEANT GERRY FELTUS:
For those new or relatively new to the case, Gerry Feltus was a Detective Sergeant who had the Somerton Man Cold case on his desk commencing in 1975. Gerry is a well-respected man with an exemplary record as a Police Officer. I know him to be beyond reproach. (The Unkown Man Book is no longer in print which is regrettable.)
The question is, are these images of the same man? You could say that the ears look very similar but when you look closely at the image on the right, it has been modified 'tidied-up' just as the profile image had been. Fair to say that there would be some deterioration but the skull, to my eyes, is more square in shape versus the skull on the left is more oval. You are looking at the reason why Paul Lawson used post-autopsy images when creating the sculpted version of the Somerton Man's face.
LINKS TO THE VARIOUS QUOTED POSTS AND DOCUMENTS ARE AT THE BASE OF THIS PAGE....
Some background, recently I posted on the images of the Somerton Man and was able to show significant differences. A commenter on another blog made some statements that were totally incorrect and could easily mislead others. The person concerned then pointed to a video made by Professor Abbott dating back to 2015. I had actually seen this video some years ago but I thought it fair to let the commenter make his points. The video as you will see was heavily focused on the matter of the Somerton Man's ears and his teeth with some contributions made by others including Tony Elliot, the nephew of the man who organised the funeral and the embalming of the body of the Somerton Man.
The issues with the video start with Tony Elliot's comments about just when the photographs of the man were taken. According to Gerry Feltus, the initial photographs of the body were taken at the time of the autopsy or shortly after as marked on the image at the top of this page. That is confirmed in the Police photographer's statement at the inquest. He produced the numbered photographs (plural):
Here's a screen grab of the police photographer, Jimmy Durham's statement:
Please note that the photographs were taken 'full face and side face' and not after the embalming process.
The comment made on the CM blog was totally wrong as was the statement made by Tony Elliot. The credibility of his statement is called into serious question as is the credibility of the commenter concerned. That's not to say that he is always wrong but on this occasion, he clearly was.And, as you will see in the image at the top Gerry Feltus has marked the lower two images as being taken shortly before the cast was made. Further doubt is now cast.
The next issues from the video relate to the ears and the 'anodontia' matter raised by Professor Abbott.
In regards to the ear, in 2010 or thereabouts I had a number of discussions with Jestyn's grandson. He kindly gave me access to some files including one that contained a clear image of his left ear. It is shown in the comparison image below. Jess's daughter, the grandson's mother came along after the Somerton Man's time, and as you will see he has a similar ear to that of the Somerton Man and others for that matter:
Now let's look at the Teeth and the Anodontia claim, here's an image of the dental chart made by Dr Dwyer followed by a cast made from that chart at the request of Gerry Feltus:
1. Dental Chart:
2. Dental Cast:
The chart is self-explanatory, the cast of the teeth clearly shows, as per the chart, that the teeth are simply missing, there is no mention anywhere of Anodontia. In fact, Dr. Dwyer states that if the man were talking normally, you wouldn't notice the missing teeth but if he were to laugh you would see it. That statement has been misquoted numerous times and yet it's there to read in the inquest documents. For the record, Gerry tells us that the teeth cast was made by Dr. Kenneth A Brown, senior lecturer in Forensic Odontology at Adelaide University, the cast was made in 2003.
MARILYN MONROE
Our friend the commenter made mention of Marilyn Monroe and how Professor Abbott had said that you wouldn't recognise her after death. Here's a photograph of Marilyn Monroe after the autopsy, a number were taken:
Anyone who knew her would recognise her. Speaking from personal experience, in the past I have attended a number of sudden deaths and a number of autopsies. Not always a pleasant experience. I clearly recall taking people along to identify various bodies and they had no problem in providing that idnetification. Ask any ex Police officer and you will get a similar response except where the body had been exposed for prolonged operiods of time as in more than say 7 days, after that it becomes progressively more difficult more difficult if it was a drowning or particularly unpleasant death.
Here's Presdient Kennedy after death:
If you knew him, you would recognise him.
LATEST CARL WEBB PIC
COURTESY OF DAVID MORGAN
I enhanced this image from a low resolution and pixelated copy
I am not convinced about this p[particular image, the details are too fuzzy to get a clear image of the left ear for example and the mouth looks wider than SMs
A final note for the commenter:
I respect your right to your views and opinions however where you call my work and/or the work of others into question and make judgments on them, you can expect a response. In each point that you made I have shown just where and how you were wrong. I did so by substantiating yet further the statements I have made. That substantiation was missing from your argument, you relied totally on what others had to say not on your own research and not on the evidence. I honestly hope that you will take this unsolicited advice in the spirit in which it is meant, I also hope you learn from it and continue to post on this subject.
One last point, the minute you resort to the words, 'As we all know...' you lost credibility. Avoid them at all costs :) You can test the issue of body identification out by asking to attend an autopsy or two.
One last point, the minute you resort to the words, 'As we all know...' you lost credibility. Avoid them at all costs :) You can test the issue of body identification out by asking to attend an autopsy or two.
LINKS:
1. 2015 Adelaide University Video: https://youtu.be/1SnC9t8qGkI
2. Recent blog post https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2022/08/somerton-man-identified-three-faces-of.html
3. 2015 blog post https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2015/01/somerton-man-professor-abbotts-lecture.html
4. Inquest Documents:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRD55YLqV9LtwFxMengIbDtfP6G0IPBU/view?usp=sharing
As for the other blog, some thought
s:
They have abandoned their search for the truth in favour of a cacophony of gaslit fantasies replete with a cast drawn from their spectacularly disastrous season of Punch & Judy at the end of Wigan Pier.
STEVE H, a simple thank you would have sufficed.
ReplyDeleteFor commenter on the Identifying The Somerton Man Facebook page. For me, this is not about grabbing media attention or winning, this is about searching for the truth and questioning things when they don't sit right. Some years ago i questioned the ear issue, found the evidence and proved that the ear claims were incorrect. I also questioned the 'anodontia' claims. I found the evidence and was able to prove that the claims made were incorrect. In this case, there are claims made that Carl Webb is the Somerton Man yet the evidence does not say that, it remains to be proven. In closing, you have every right to voice your opinion and you have the right to question. Just do it in a respectful manner and you will get a respectful response. Have a great day.
ReplyDeleteAt first I want to say that English is not my first language. I have been following your blog for a some time and I often return to the photos of Somenton Man. I'm curious about the effect embalming and decomposition have on appearance. This man, however, waited quite a long time for the burial. I am not an expert, but perhaps facial features can change significantly under the cue of embalming and decay? The photos were also taken with different cameras and lenses and with different lighting. The distance to the subject and the focal length also affect the image quality and the appearance of the subject. I understand that in 1948 there was not much of the techniques that we have today, but it seems logical to keep an accurate documentation of each case and there are not many documents here that should be, Somerton Man things have been jumper out, or missing, pictures of the man have been taken after the autopsy and before the burial, instead of finding the body, the facial features on the casting were corrected by the person doing the casting, which in my opinion disqualifies this casting as a source of information. Is there any information that the suitcase has been checked for fingerprints? Why had no one taken any pictures of the man beforen the autopsy? I understand they found some guy, probably drunk, and assumed someone would come in for him, but as the saying goes, don't jump to conclusions.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting. A few thoughts in response:
ReplyDeletePART 1.
1. Embalming as I am sure you know is meant to preserve a body and its features. In the case of the Somerton Man, he was both embalmed and kept in a frozen state. Theoretically that means that he should have been fairly easily recognisable even after 6 months. The photos taken just prior to the bust being made, bear little resemblance to those taken at the time of the autopsy. That may be explained by an embalming process that didn't take too well or perhaps the action of the Freezer. For example during the intervening times, there may have been power cuts. My experience with embalmed bodies is limited to seeing photographs, but have seen a number of cases where decay had taken over and over that many months, the effect can be catastrophic. My inclination is to say that there should be some resemblance.
2, The photographs at the autopsy were taken by Jimmy Durham, the SA Police photographer/ forensics man. My understanding is that they were taken with a dry glass plate negative camera. That kind of photography is still used today and turns out super sharp and highly detailed images sometimes better than those taken with a modern digital camera. Generally, Police photographers ion those days it seems used the same camera for most tasks adding different lenses and lighting as appropriate. Both sets of images were taken at the morgue as far as I am aware. The photographer was, more than likely, Jimmy Durham again. The second set appear to have been taken with a similar lens but adjusted distance. As for lighting I don't have an answer. We don't have any notes to refer to. Here's a link to an article on Dry Glass Plate photography and at least one good reason why it is still in use today:
https://petapixel.com/2018/04/30/dry-glass-plate-photography-is-back/
Elsewhere you may find that Dry Glass Plate is still used in Museums.
Part 2 Follows...
Response PART 2.
ReplyDelete3. The profile pre bust image was quite definitely 'touched' to smooth over the decay marks I suspect. In fact the autopsy images also appear to have had some work done on them. The newspaper article at the time did mention that the autopsy pics were reconstructed photographs. The pre bust front face view is quite different from the autopsy image most markedly in the shape of the head/ skull. It is square as opposed to the somewhat oval face of the autopsy image.
4. Missing photographs, at one of the interviews with Paul Lawson, he made mention of there being a pre autopsy photograph and more were taken. I have not seen them.
5. The relevance of the bust. I understand your point on the bust but we do need to consider the reaction of the nurse when she saw it. Was that because she recognised him? Or was it because it was not the person she expected to see? Personally I think Paul did a good sculpting job and I wouldn't be in a hurry to discount the finished bust.
6. Fingerprints, that issue has been the topic of many discussions. Other than the fingerprints taken from the man, there are no fingerprint records for any of the items found and associated with the Somerton Man.That includes the suitcase, the book, the torn piece, clothing or from other people in the case. Like it or not that is the reality so we need to work with what we have. There are those in the Somerton Man space who may seize on this to create various scenarios, but without the records they are just fantasies. Depending on the condition of the exhumed remains, it sounds improbable but it's not impossible there may be partial fingerprints amongst them. That's for the forensics people to figure out.
Some of these questions may be answered by the Police report when it is released. Not the least of which is the matter of the dental chart taken at the autopsy by Dr.Dwyer, which has to match that of the exhumed remains which are said to be in excellent condition.
Given that the Carl Webb ID is confirmed by the Police forensic examination, questions still remain. Why was he in Adelaide? Was there some connection with Tibor Kaldor and perhaps other deaths? Why there is evidence of clandestine communication codes in the case, still remains. The focus now can be purely on the physical evidence that remains including the torn piece and the Boxall Rubaiyat together with any detailed photographs that still exist.
Hope this helps!
Probably a silly question but did they get a match with hair colour from the hair samples taken for DNA? i mean with the grey/ginger tinge descriptions?
ReplyDelete