..This post brings together much of the information related to the issue of the body of the Somerton Man, the creation of the bust, and the more recent, as yet unproven claims that Carl Webb is the Somerton Man. There is cause for careful consideration of the facts...
...DECEMBER 3rd 1948...
...1948 THE POST-AUTOPSY PROFILE PHOTOGRAPH...
...The photographs of the body were taken by Detective Jimmy Durham the day after the autopsy was performed by Dr Dwyer,
The image above is one not often seen on the web and there are a few things to note about it:
1. There is a small mark on the collar of the shirt below the ear, which may be the blood stain referred to in Clelands notes.
2. The man's hair which was described as being reddish-tinged and fair in colour is in this image dark in colour. It does not appear to be wet.
3, Again in the top image, on the man's neck, you will see a number of parallel crease marks, between the chin and the ear. They seem to finish abruptly when they meet what appears to be a difference in colouration that runs in a line from the tip of the chin to the right ear lobe.
3, Again in the top image, on the man's neck, you will see a number of parallel crease marks, between the chin and the ear. They seem to finish abruptly when they meet what appears to be a difference in colouration that runs in a line from the tip of the chin to the right ear lobe.
4. Just above the eyebrows you will notice a 'bump'. It seems to delineate the point on the forehead from a rougher texture to a smooth one.
5. You may see a small mark to the left of the mouth, it has been said that it is a mole but according to Gerrty Feltus, he believes that it may be a blood stain caused by the autopsy examination.
The full-face image again shows some abnormalities:
6. There is a noticeable variation in the 'texture. of the image on the forehead. It is mottled in appearance from a point close to the hairline and down to a midpoint on the forehead reaching from the left to the right. That line seems to coincide with the bump that is visible in the top image.
7, At a point above the left ear and where the texture changes on the hairline, there appears to be a slight 'overrun' where the smoother textured part of the forehead extends beyond the mottled area.
Questions arising for these images are:
1. The bloodstained collar
2. The presence of a mole
3. The variation in image texture
4. The parallel crease marks on the neck
5. The 'bump' on the forehead
5. The colour of the hair.
It is thought that the colouration differences pointed out here are possibly the results of the 'reconstructed photographs' referred to in various press articles at the time. It would appear that facial features have been modified which could have included the superimposition of a modified photograph. Please refer to the section below titled 'THE BUST'.
APRIL 1949
BUST TO BE MADE:
In April 1949, the press carried an article related to the body of the Somerton Man. A number of items are addressed in the article:
1. The body had been in the morgue for a period of 5 months and remained unidentified.
2. A plaster bust was to be made of the man for future reference. This was a first for SA Police
3. The undertaker Laurie Elliot had carried out embalming of the body 9 days after it had been found
4. The suitcase was discovered and it had clothing in it bearing the name KEANE.
5. The undertaker Laurie Elliot visited the Morgue 4 times a week with a total of 50 visits in three months for purposes associated with the embalming of the body.
Questions arising for the points raised in the article are:
1. Did Laurie Elliot have an assistant when he carried out the embalming of the body on December 10th 1948?
2. What chemicals were used for the embalming process on December 10th 1948?
3. Was Mr Elliot ever accompanied on his visits to the morgue?
4. What other chemicals or processes were employed by Mr Elliot on the morgue visits?
It is known that Formaldehyde is a common chemical in use for embalming
JUNE 1949|
PAUL LAWSON'S DIARY:
The PDF document above is of a number of pages from Paul Lawson's diary covering the time that he was engaged in creating the plaster bust of the Somerton Man.
Here is a transcript f the Diary entries:
JUNE 1st:
Writing statement for Director on handling of Dromicia
Research open colour of fish
JUNE 2nd.
Viewing Somerton Mystery body at West terrace with Detectives
Planning above
JUNE 3rd
Preparing for Police job
Kosters pottery for rewt clay
JUNE 4th
Sat
JUNE 5th
Sun
JUNE 6th
Final preparations for Police job
JUNE 7th Tuesday
Working at Morgue with Police
On the molding of bust of
Somerton Mystery Man
(8 scribbled over)
JUNE 8th.
Police job
Interview with detectives (Brown + 1)
Ring from Constable Dinham re disposal
of orginal body
Casting of ears
piecing together of mold
6.30 - 9.30 pm
Ears (underlined) Mold from flesh - plaster
Plaster - Vinghold
Vinnmold - wax dental
Wax - Finished head
(10 scribbled out),
June 9th
Piecing together mold
Filling mold with plaster
Breaking away plaster mold.
June 10th
Breaking away plaster mold
(Det brown + 1)
(O'K ing job)
Page initialed HM HALE?
THERE'S NOW A BREAK FROM THE 10th June to 15th June
JUNE 15th
Detective Brown, Noblett, Detective Sgt Leane
Finishing off cast of Somerton Man
Dr. Cleland, inspected cast
Mr. NBT inspected cast
JUNE 16th
Moving room fittings & tools for
installation of new bench
Handing over of cast to PC Horsnell
and photographing same at Police HQ
JUNE 17th
1010 am to 11 am Coroners court
re Somerton body
Moving room furniture for carpenters
Making flexible mold of fossil
Canberra number 192 or 275 (Telephone numbers)
JUNE 18th
illegible..erasures Sat
JUNE 21st
Interviewing rep at Bickfords re PVA
Casting Canberra fossil
Receiving bust cast of Somerton body
from Det Sgt Leane
Wriring article for AGMA
JUNE 22nd
Packing fish in tin for Sydney
FH Fauldings for color indicator
Discussion with Director re duplicate
casts of Somerton body
AGMA data
Trial cast of wood rings (ex Glenelg)
GAP HERE UNTIL JULY 25th
Painting fish and fitting fins to
same (Acrylic)
JULY 26th
Discussion with NBT re fish for case
Casting SE Drainage map
( Det Sgt Leane with Mrs Thompson to view
bust cast of Somerton body)
JUNE 1949
PRE-BUST PHOTOGRAPHS:
The pre-bust photographs as can be seen bear little to no resemblance to the appearance of the Somerton Man images displayed earlier of the Somerton Man. Included are the images of a #D scan of the bust which was taken by Adelaide University around 2014. Once again, there is little to no resemblance between these images and those of the Somerton Man. I have included them here for reference purposes only. Of note is the fact that the side profile photograph has been heavily modified.
The body of the man was used to build the bust however the facial features were added after the core bust had been completed. Please see the next section for more.
THE BUST:
In 2020, I received a telephone call from Mr. Lawson and he asked if I was prepared to spend time interviewing him on the subject of the Somerton Man. We agreed to make a start which occurred in July 2020. Excerpts from those discussions are included in this section.
Of note in the above image of the bust is the distinct 'bump' that appears across the forehead. There are two possible causes for this both of which I discussed with Paul.
1. The bump maybe where, following the autopsy, the skull cap had been wrongly replaced
2. The second and most likely cause is that in the discussion with Paul, he told me that he had been instructed to use the post-autopsy photographs to model the facial features of the man. The process was to first complete the basic build of the head and shoulders and then after that part had dried, Paul modeled the face on top of the base construction of the bust. Therefore the bump is most likely where the later plaster model of the face joined the existing core structure of the bust.
3. The modeling had to take into account the man's hair. It was important that it be kept in place during the process. To that end, Paul told me that he 'smothered' the hair on the man's head with mortuary soap such that it stuck together and was held firmly in place whilst he applied the plaster and modeled the hair accordingly. The initial modeling of the hair took place during the building of the initial mold. In his diary entry dated 15th June he mentions 'finishing off' the bust, he was referring to the modeling of the face and finishing off the modeling of the hair. It would mean that there were two layers of plaster applied to the head and hair.
2012
HAIR SAMPLE EXTRACTION:
Above Photo From IEEE Article April 2023
https://spectrum.ieee.org/somerton-man
According to the article on the IEEE website, Professor Abbott enlisted the assistance of Jannette Edson, a qualified hair analyst, to harvest hair samples from the plaster bust of the Somerton Man. This exercise was carried out in 2012. It is not known just how many strands were harvested but Professor Abbot states that he kept them safe for 10 years whilst DNA analysis methods improved.
In 2019 a Dr. Ed Green from Santa Cruz announced a breakthrough in DNA identification using rootless hair shafts. The discovery led Dr. Green to resolve two out of four cases from New Hampshire. Here's a link to that story:
https://www.genomebc.ca/blog/forensics-breakthrough-dna-extracted-from-rootless-hair
Professor Abbot further stated that he had a first failed attempt at identification using some of the 2012 harvested hairs and had just one hair sample left and it was a rootless sample. This was submitted to a company known as ASTREA FORENSICS, headed by Dr Green the man who had apparently made the breakthrough mentioned earlier in this section. (Read more about Astrea in the next section.)
1. The sample sent by Professor Abbott in July 2022 was 5 cm in length, a 2-inch long strand of human hair.
2. It is estimated that hair grows at a rate between .5 cm and 1.7 cm per month.
3. It has been found that despite common belief, there are differences between male and female hair:
...This study of comparison between male and female hair specimens revealed that the hair color at the distal end (tip) is found to be brown for females while it is completely black in that of males, and the surface texture of males is found to have some irregularities while there are no irregularities in female....
4. Professor Abbott makes no mention of the sex of the person from whom the 5 cm sample was taken.
4. Keratin, a protein is known to protect hair shafts. However, Hydrogen Peroxide, a common ingredient of soaps and disinfectants, destroys keratin
AUGUST 19th. 2022
ASTREA FORENSICS & CLARETBIO
1. ASTREA FORENSICS
The company was founded by Dr. Green in 2019 following his breakthrough discovery related to successful rootless hair analysis. On its website, the company currently has 7 well-qualified staff including Dr. Green.
According to their website:
1. In 2019, ASTREA had 2 successful cases where victims and then a perpetrator
2. Two more successful identifications in 2020
3. There 7 successful identifications in 2021
4. There were 11 successful IDs in 2022 including the Somerton Man
5. Thus far in 2023 there have been no resolved cases
Link to News stories at ASTREA: https://www.astreaforensics.com/in-the-news
Link to the Astrea team members: https://www.astreaforensics.com/who-we-are
2. CLARETBIO
This is another company closely related to ASTREA FORENSICS along with a company called EDENROC.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
To my knowledge, the next steps are for the Police to bring together a report to the Coroner and in due course submit it for his review. It will be for the Coroner to announce any findings he may make based on the evidence submitted for his consideration. The current Adelaide Coroner is David Whittle.
It is intriguing to note that the Professor failed to acknowledge a significant aspect concerning the determination of gender of the owner based on a single strand of hair in DNA analysis. This point of interest holds great importance, and I do not intend any pun with that statement. To clarify, it seems that in the past, various attempts have been made to analyze hair samples from the bust, yet the gender of the owner has never been mentioned in any of these instances.
ReplyDeleteI have compiled a list based on your previous posts, keeping score if you will.
ReplyDelete1. In October of last year, you mentioned that AB Carl Webb, who possessed a British Passport and was of the same age as Charlie Webb, had a height of only 5 feet 8 inches.
2. You have demonstrated on multiple occasions, there are notable differences in the shape of the ears.
3. There are valid concerns regarding the determination of the owner's gender based on the hair sample.
4. There is significant evidence suggesting the presence of DNA-destroying chemicals such as sodium hypochlorite and Hydrogen Peroxide in the mortuary soap used on the Somerton Man's hair, as well as the use of Formaldehyde in the embalming process.
5. It is also worth mentioning Paul Lawson's remarks regarding the boiling process applied to the skull.
Whatever next!
Thanks for the feedback, all these issues add up. Is it proof positive yet? Not quite but it certainly is well on its way. Right now I hope to hear from St Louis archives re Able Seaman Webb that would be a deal clincher but it's by no means certain as yet. The other aspects are focused on the validity of the DNA tests which even at this stage are in serious doubt.
ReplyDeleteThis has my interest as I have some experience in this field, here are some formalised thoughts on the subject of the issues surrounding DNA samples.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the Detrimental Effects of Sodium Hypochlorite and Hydrogen Peroxide on DNA Samples
Introduction:
In the field of DNA analysis, ensuring the integrity of DNA samples is of utmost importance. However, certain chemicals used in various processes can have detrimental effects on DNA. In this article, we will explore two commonly used chemicals, sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide, and their potential negative impacts on DNA samples.
Sodium Hypochlorite:
Sodium hypochlorite, commonly known as bleach, is a powerful oxidizing agent often used for disinfection and cleaning purposes. While effective at eliminating contaminants, it can pose risks to DNA samples. Exposure to sodium hypochlorite can result in the following detrimental effects:
a. DNA Degradation: Sodium hypochlorite can cause DNA degradation by breaking the phosphodiester backbone of the DNA molecule. This leads to the fragmentation and loss of genetic material, making it challenging to obtain reliable DNA profiles.
b. Oxidative Damage: The oxidative properties of sodium hypochlorite can lead to the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). These ROS can attack and modify DNA bases, causing DNA damage and potentially impacting the accuracy of DNA analysis.
Hydrogen Peroxide:
Hydrogen peroxide is a commonly used oxidizing agent with various applications, including sterilization and cleaning. However, its use in DNA sample processing requires caution due to the potential detrimental effects:
a. DNA Oxidation: Hydrogen peroxide can oxidize DNA, leading to damage to the DNA structure. This oxidation process can disrupt the DNA helix and introduce errors in subsequent DNA analysis, affecting the reliability of results.
b. Base Modifications: Hydrogen peroxide can induce chemical modifications in DNA bases, such as the formation of 8-oxoguanine. These modifications can interfere with DNA replication and compromise the accuracy of DNA profiling.
Mitigation Strategies:
Given the potential detrimental effects of sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide on DNA samples, it is crucial to employ appropriate mitigation strategies. Some considerations include:
a. Dilution: Using lower concentrations of these chemicals can help minimize their negative impact on DNA samples.
b. Controlled Exposure Time: Limiting the exposure time of DNA samples to these chemicals can reduce the risk of extensive DNA damage.
c. Alternative Cleaning Agents: Exploring alternative cleaning agents that are less likely to cause DNA damage can help preserve the integrity of DNA samples.
Conclusion:
While sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide are effective for disinfection and cleaning purposes, they can have detrimental effects on DNA samples. DNA degradation, oxidative damage, and base modifications are some of the potential consequences. To ensure accurate and reliable DNA analysis, it is crucial to exercise caution, employ mitigation strategies, and consider alternative methods or agents when dealing with DNA samples.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as professional or medical advice. Always consult with experts and follow established protocols and guidelines in DNA analysis.
Nobody saw his face. Not getting on the train in Melbourne, or on the platform at Spencer Street, or at the ticket office, or on the train from Melbourne, seated next to them, conductors punching tickets, in the buffet car, getting off the train in Adelaide, at Adelaide Railway station, on the platform, at the cloak room, at the City Baths, in North Terrace, on the bus, in Jetty Road at Glenelg, in Moseley Street Glenelg, in the pub, on the beach, in the morgue. All those people on the train, on the bus, at the station, at the cloak room, in the street, in the pub. Thousands of people. You wouldn't because those photos are not him. Publish them and everyone sees that face and that face then becomes who they are looking for. People saw him but they don't know they saw him. Those photos are not him
ReplyDeleteHere's a photo we created for the press.
ReplyDeleteMake a plaster bust out of it
Use anyone's head in the morgue to start it
then make it look like this photo
There is no evidence whatsoever
ReplyDeletethat the person in the grave
is the person who was on the beach.
Not by dental records, or DNA, or anything else
Nobody took a photo of him on the beach with their Kodak Brownie
Police took no photos on the beach which could have been a crime scene
That is the evidence you need to say yes that's him
Without that you have nothing
I sense the frustration and to an extent we agree. But we do differ in parts.
DeleteThere is a chain of evidence that has a body being seen on the beach, then taken by ambulance to the Hospital where it is examined and from there he was transported to the morgue. The next morning the body is identified to Dr Dwyer who carried out a post mortem. The good Doctor also went to the trouble of making a chart of the teeth.
That is posted here on the blog. It would stand to reason that if the dental chart of the exhumed remains match the chart taken by Doctor Dwyer then the body on the beach and on the slab is the body that was exhumed. Without that matching chart, then we do not know who the exhumed remains belong to. The DNA is like a mist at the moment, the evidence is way too flimsy to be of any real use.
What I didn't put in this post was the fact that under normal circumstances there would be 5 to 10 strands of hair that would be examined. Professor Abbott had the one and it had no roots. We have no way of confirming just where that single strand of hair came from or when and by whom it was taken and we certainly don't know the gender.
Thanks for the comment.
If you have proof that the dental chart is from the man on the beach can we see that proof. A morgue file reference number, or official memo on file, something marked on the back of that tag that says man on Somerton beach, as solid proof. Would you have that?
ReplyDeleteA good way to confirm the authenticity of the dental chart is to read the inquest documents. Dr, Dwyer, the man who performed the autopsy on the body of the Somerton Man, discussed the teeth issue in his statement. The handwritten dental chart was submitted to the court as exhibit C8 (page 115 ).
ReplyDeleteYours was a good and pertinent question to ask. The dental chart is a key piece of evidence in the case and never more so than at this time. The chart is the only evidence that can prove or disprove that the exhumed remains are those of the Somerton Man.
Here's a link to a post that will give you more information on the inquest, it includes a download link for the actual pdf of the documents:
https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2019/11/somerton-man-1958-inquest-findings.html?m=1
I noticed that gender might be able to be gauged. Is it possible to calculate age from a hair sample?
ReplyDeleteTerri, there are different views on that issue. Some say yes and others say no. I suggest you check out both sides of the argument on Google. In the meantime here's a link that might help:
Deletehttps://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/Hair-Analysis-in-Forensic-Science.aspx#:~:text=Variability%20in%20such%20features%20can,body%20hair%20has%20come%20from.
One has to wonder why Astrea Forensics, promoted by Dr Fitzpatrick and Professor Abbott as being leaders in the new field of obtaining dna from rootless hair shafts, has had no recorded wins in this year to date. Seems a little odd. Any thoughts out there?
ReplyDeleteVeritas. The Astrea situation is a little concerning. It is highly unusual for a company to stop 'scoring runs' after a winning streak and with no explanation.. Legal issues, cash dried up or in-house squabbles. Take your pick.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is certain and that is if they don't put up a credible and substantiated explanation and soon, it will certainly damage their credibility and by default it has the potential to cast another dark and ominous cloud over Professor Abbott's claims.
Thanks for the information and
ReplyDeletelinks on the inquest docs. I saw the dental chart and see what you mean. Pretty solid proof.
The grapevine says Astrea isn't trading hasn't been for some months. Coincides with the sudden silence from DA's FB pages?
ReplyDeleteWe need to be cautious with 'grapevine' information. Best to give our friends some time to get to the bottom of it. A few days ought to do it.
DeleteAn update re Astrea Forensics, the company touted as being the ones that analysed the DNA sent by Prof Abbott as being the one that successfully used a new technique to retrieve useable DNA that led to the identification of Carl Webb as the Somerton Man. As mentioned in an earlier comment, Astrea's website looks to be dormant, there have been no new success stories or otherwise mentioned on their NEWS pages or elsewhere. The latest is that they have not responded to contact form messages. It seems possible that they are no longer in existence as that company at least and you have to ask why that would be?
ReplyDeleteFor the record, Carl Webb was not identified as the Somerton Man, the DNA led to a group of people and I think that two were identified as having no trace after 1947. Professor Abbott then presumed that it must be Carl Webb, thgere was no direct proof.