...THE MAKING OF THE BUST...
Before w =e go further and in order to alleviate the shock and horror of the naysayers, no, this is not an image of the Somerton Man bust, It is of an 'in progress' sculpture.
In contrast, the Somerton Man bust was taken directly from a human head and what's in serious question here is just whose head was used?
In contrast, the Somerton Man bust was taken directly from a human head and what's in serious question here is just whose head was used?
Let's walk through the process that Paul Lawson described to me:
1. We have a body and the face of that body does not match that of the autopsy photographs of the man found on Somerton Beach on December 1st, 1948.
2. Paul Lawson along with two and occasionally 3 Detectives set about making a plaster bust of the upper body of the man in the morgue as requested by SAPOL Detective Sergeant Ray Leane.
3. The process was to first create a timber support structure around the upper body of the man.
4. Vingold and Vinghold sisal Treated gypsum) was used to create the mold as per Paul's notes.
5. The head of the body was covered in a release substance, Paul had specifically mentioned that he used Mortuary soap for that purpose. The release substance is applied to ensure that the skin and hair of the subject do not get 'caught' in the plaster mold and the mold would come away easily from the head.
6. An interesting aside is that mortuary soap contains sodium hypochlorite or bleach. This is a substance known to destroy DNA.
6. An interesting aside is that mortuary soap contains sodium hypochlorite or bleach. This is a substance known to destroy DNA.
7. The bust is created and the plaster dries relatively quickly around half an hour at the outside.
8. The next step is to '\break away' the mold from the head and this was done.
9. It is during that breaking away of the mold that any hair would have been transferred from the head of the man to the inside of the mold. These hairs, if any, would have been pulled by the hair shaft tips but we must bear in mind that the release substance, was heavily coated on the man’s hair specifically to stop any hair being pulled away. Meaning that it is unlikely that hair from the man’s head was transferred in the breaking away process. Yet there have been claims that the bust was very hairy and hair, including the lone 5 cm hair used to make the Carl Webb claim, was found sometimes in clumps.
10. The mold is left to set for a short while, it is in two pieces.
10. The mold is left to set for a short while, it is in two pieces.
11. The two halves are joined and dried.
12. A plaster mix is prepared, it is known that human hair was often used in the preparation of plaster bust mixes. Importantly we do not have any confirmation of that but we do know that it was the practice as human hair had the effect of creating a smoother more resilient finish to plaster busts. It is most likely that this human hair in the plaster cast mix is the hair that was discovered by Professor Abbot.
12. Thus we now have a complete bust ready for the plaster mix which could have contained human hair, to be poured in.
13. We now need to imagine the inside of the bust and the various protrusions therein. If Professor Abbott's assertions are correct, there must have been various strands of hair protruding from the inner parts of the mold. Otherwise, how could the hair strands said to be from Carl Webb have been transferred to the bust? Then, again, we must consider the mortuary soap release agent. Plastered on heavily by Paul Lawson with the specific purpose of preventing the hair from being caught and pulled from the man’s head.
12. Thus we now have a complete bust ready for the plaster mix which could have contained human hair, to be poured in.
13. We now need to imagine the inside of the bust and the various protrusions therein. If Professor Abbott's assertions are correct, there must have been various strands of hair protruding from the inner parts of the mold. Otherwise, how could the hair strands said to be from Carl Webb have been transferred to the bust? Then, again, we must consider the mortuary soap release agent. Plastered on heavily by Paul Lawson with the specific purpose of preventing the hair from being caught and pulled from the man’s head.
14. At this point there is an issue, Paul Lawson maintained that the face and hair features of the man from whom the bust was made were in fact altered by him so that they would better reflect the appearance of the man as he appeared in the post autopsy photograph.
15. What this means is that the physical structure of the bust was altered and it would not have been an insignificant alteration. Protruding hairs if any(that were in fact first spotted by me and I duly informed Professor Abbott of the fact and the opportunity to perhaps harvest DNA), may have been covered over by this last layer of plaster
16. That 'covering over' step would have been done with what is called a 'slip' type solution, and that according to various informed bust-making sources, could well have contained human har. Such hair was regularly sold by hairdressers to the trade. I acknowledge a comment made by John Sanders some time ago regarding the use of human hair from a Hindley Street Adelaide hairdresser during the relevant time,
There you have it, there is no absolute proof that the hair sample provided by Professor Abbott was from the body found on the beach. Further, there was only one sample of hair with root attached that was retrieved and sent to Astrea when the best practice in such cases is to have 8 or more such samples. This leaves a significant doubt that the hair used to Identify Carl Webb as the Somerton Man was in fact from the body of the Somerton Man and now that the single retrieved sample has gone and its results cannot be tested or confirmed, there is no evidence that Carl Webb is the Somerton Man.
there is no absolute proof that the hair sample provided by Professor Abbott was from the body found on the beach
ReplyDeletewell, you got that right
Wonder how many have thought about the big fuss made a few years ago when the detailed analysis of hair samples taken from the bust was announced?
ReplyDeleteOn the basis that human hair was incorporated into the sisal used to make the bust, that would raise more interesting questions.
My friend works at a morgue he said they always get cross contamination during that time due to dna not existing at the time and they didn’t use the same procedures that they do today, he said he isn’t surprised that the hair sample might not be the SM! I’m kinda new to this case did they take tissue sample from the body when it was at the morgue? As they do in the states when John&Jane does are found!
ReplyDeleteRegarding samples, the short answer is yes they took samples and organs from the body for forensic examination but in those times they didn't have the facilities that we have today.
DeleteIn a relatively recent post we looked at the anodontia claim made by Professor Abbott in support of his theory that Jestyn’s son Robin was the child of the Somerton man.
ReplyDeleteWhat has always puzzled me is why an intelligent man, a professor would openly disregard the original primary evidence given by Dr Dwyer, the man who performed the autopsy on the body of the Somerton Man. His evidence both written in his deposition to the Coroner and in the form of a hand drawn and notated dental chart, made it abundantly clear that the man did not have anodontia, the man had a total of 18 missing teeth and that condition is known as OLIGODONTIA, that is when a person has more than 6 missing teeth. Yet nowhere in the the Professor’s statements will you find a reference to the latter term. And this is one reason why I question the voracity of the current claim that Carl Webb is the Somerton Man. In fact I will go further and say that, given the evidence and what I now know, Carl Webb cannot be the Somerton Man. This latest claim made by the Professor is another in a series of unsubstantiated claims. Will there be more?