....THE INSIDE OF THE SKULL WAS PRISTINE....
This post is not for the squeamish...
Amongst the numerous interviews, I held with Paul Lawson, the Adelaide Museum Taxidermist who created the bust, when he, after he had completed the bust and under instructions from Cleland, went to remove the skull of the body, he was surprised at what he found.
The first thing he noticed was that the stitching which he began to undo, was extremely fine work, a practiced hand in his terms. When he had completed that stage and again very much to his surprise, the top of the skull fell off. It had been very cleanly sawn through as you see in the image above.
If the first two stages surprised him the third thing shocked him. What he noticed was that the inside of the skull was 'pristine', 'clean as a whistle.' There was no trace of any organic material whatsoever, it had been boiled clean.
At this point, from what I have learned, the process employed by taxidermists and others was to remove the skull, then place it in a large pan filled with water, then it was boiled until all of the excess material other than the bone, fell away. The next step was to wipe it out and then place it in another large pan containing hydrogen peroxide, which resulted in the plain white-boned skull with which most would be familiar.
The skull of the man of whom Paul Lawson was about to make a plaster bust, had been removed, that's the only way that it could possibly be in the condition in which Paul found it.
THE IMPLICATIONS
Imagine yourselves now in the shoes of the Forensics team as they face the task of examining the exhumed remains. What are the options and what are the implications?
Option 1 The skull of the man, after being cleaned, was put back with the body.
Option 2. The skull that was put back in place was not the one that was removed
Those are the only two options.
If it was option 1, the skull was cleaned and put back, The question has to be asked, why would you go to all that trouble?
If it was option 2. the skull put back was not the one that was removed. Same question, why go to all that trouble?
Was the skull removed and replaced with another? Quite possibly, in fact, in my view, that seems probable. But why? Did someone want to hide something? What could that 'something have been? Did someone want to keep it as a souvenir? I imagine that sort of thing did and does happen.
What would someone want to hide? The removal of organic material could have revealed the presence of certain hypnotic drugs that only show themselves in the brain. The thorough cleaning process would have removed any and all traces of such drugs. If that was the case, the body was about to be buried, along with any evidence of hypnotic drugs which would surely dissipate over time? Why do that?
Back then, did someone have the foresight to see that as time passed new examination techniques could lead to the discovery of what had really happened?
After The Discovery
Let's go back to review what happened after Paul's discovery. Whilst Paul was about to replace the unexpectedly clean skull, a Police Officer burst into the morgue and told him to stop doing what he was doing and sew the man up because he was about to be buried. Paul had no option but to comply.
Here's the really fascinating point. The man was not buried for another week or more.
How do we know for certain that the body that Paul worked on was the same body that was placed in the coffin to be, years later, exhumed?
The Hair Samples
According to Paul, in one of the interviews, he had kept hair samples from the body and he had given some to Professor Abbott with the results that we now all know. The man from whom the hair samples came, was Carl Webb.
The question here is, was the body, presumably Carl Webb, from which Paul Lawson took the hair samples, the same body on which Dr. Dwyer had performed the autopsy on December 2nd, 1948?
That question is asked in the light of the pre-bust images and the comments from the press at the time, the appearance of the man had physically and materially altered, and he did not look like the images taken at the time of the autopsy.
Incidentally, Paul also told me that he had sent the hair samples for examination and the result came back positive for Strontium 90, a Nuclear fission by-product.
Perhaps the dental chart taken by Dr. Dwyer at the time of the autopsy will answer some of these questions.
If the chart from the autopsy matches the chart from the exhumed remains then those remains are from the Somerton Man, if they don't then that's an entirely different problem. Note that 18 of this man's teeth are missing.
But wait a minute, what if the skull placed with the body was the skull and therefore teeth from the Dwyer autopsy? Aha... then what?
The body of the man on the beach had an autopsy performed and then immediately after, Jimmy Durham took photographs having first dressed him in his shirt and tie. He did that right there on the slab where the autopsy had just taken place. Lots of blood and gunk around, that's how the blood got on the shirt as the guys that have been there would know. Cleland would have examined the items after the autopsy. Hope this helps you fellas!
ReplyDeleteNot quite Dai, the pics were taken the day after, 3rd December. Jimmy Durham and Constable Knight did the work. They removed the naked body, which was on a steel stretcher and then put it on the mortuary slab. The slab may have had blood on it.They dressed him in the shirt and tie after his fingerprints had been taken. That's when the photos were taken. No rubber gloves, they had to scrub their hands with mortuary soap, unpleasant stuff. So it is possible that either the steel stretcher or the slab had blood on it.
ReplyDeleteI should pay more attention to Gerry's book! The man arrived at the morgue, stripped off, searched and ready for his autopsy the next day. Put on a steel stretcher and popped into the fridge.
ReplyDeleteClothes parked in a bag and maybe a cupboard.
Out comes the body the next day, autopsy performed, blood on the slab no doubt, body put on a steel stretcher again and back in the fridge he went perhaps taking some blood from the autopsy with him.
.
Along comes Jimmy and Constable Knight the next day, open the fridge, out comes the steel stretcher with possibly some autopsy blood stains on his back.
Clothes, specifically the shirt and tie, not the jacket or pullover, brought out and after the fingerprints were taken, they dressed the man in his shirt and tie ready for the happy snaps, transferring a little blood onto his shirt in the process. Blood wouldn't have got anywhere near the coat or pullover. Funny that, every time I wrote Blood I wanted to write Blodwyn!
How was that GC?
Pretty good Dai, one issue though is that when we took a body to the morgue and its a 'sudden, unnatural or violent' death, we would follow the procedures and always look for any signs of injury or wounds. Constable Moss when he brought the body in, would have done that. In fact he once said in a Newspaper article how he paid attention to details. So, if there were any blood on the shirt when the body was brought in, he would have noticed it. The next day, had there been blood on the shirt Jimmy Durham or Contsable Knight would also have noticed it. Hence, the bloodstain was after the body arrived at the morgue quite probably as you have suggested.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone check Keane's height? What about the coat that SM was wearing, that was said to be American and the clothes handed down were from Keane?
ReplyDeleteWhy was Lawson intructed to remove the skull? The brain was removed during the autopsy, which is standard procedure. What happened to it? Did they put it back before the burial? I don't think they removed the skull from the head, but rinsed the cavity clean before putting the cap back and stitching it up. You don't want leaking fluids from the cuts at the back of the head.
ReplyDeleteA good question. Cleland made the request and there is no known reason for it. There are possibilities, one would be he was looking for further evidence, his curiosity aroused by the 18 missing teeth. Agreed that the brain would have been removed, note that it was not amongst the organs sent to Cowan for further examination. Normally the organs are then later buried with the body.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been very difficult to clean the cavity as clean as Paul described without removing it. The process involved boiling it and the use of some chemicals to achieve that result so I find it difficult to agree with you on that point.
As to whether the incision was made at the front or back of the head, that's another question which I see you have raised in another comment.