THE SOMERTON MAN MYSTERY: QUO VADIS?.. PONDERINGS ON THE CURRENT STATUS...

 

Whither Goest Thou?

There are many references to this term, dating back to the time of Christ and including, as in the image above, a book published in the 1890s'. But this post is not about the origins of the term it is a question related to the Somerton Man case, just where it stands and where it's heading.

Current Status

The SA Police (SAPOL), have for some years been gathering information on the Somerton Man case and that effort increased in tempo following the exhumation of remains said to be those of the Somerton Man in 2022. The exhumation was called for by many with the effort being spearheaded by Professor Derek Abbott of Adelaide University which is now incorporated with the University of South Australia.

Shortly after the exhumation, Professor Abbott announced that he had proof that the Somerton Man was a man named Carl Webb.

This is the 3rd claim made by the Professor in relation to to the Somerton Man.

Claim 1, was that the Somerton Man had a condition known as 'Anodontia' plus he had a rare ear type in which the Cymba is larger than the Cavum, this occurs in between 1 and 2 % of the Caucasian population according to Professor Abbott. The claim stated that these were traits found in the nurse's son, Jessica Harkness. therefore, in all likelihood, Jessica's son was fathered by the Somerton Man.

This claim was incorrect because the ear type was also present in a grandson of Jessica whose mother came along after the Somerton Man's time. Regarding the man's teeth, the claim was that he had anodontia a condition where the lateral incisors were missing as an hereditary trait and their place taken by the canine teeth. However, the dental chart taken by Doctor Dwyer at the autopsy of the man shows that the man did not have the condition known as anodontia, the chart shows that the man had a total of 18 missing teeth which, even for those times was quite rare, no reason for this has been identified.

Ear Comparisons:

Dental Chart, Exhibit C2 Coronial Inquest:

The dental chart is a little confusing as the Professor was aware of the missing teeth as it is included in his Wiki which you can find here:

https://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/wiki/index.php/The_Taman_Shud_Case_Coronial_Inquest

Claim 2, was that following an examination of the hair samples taken from the plaster bust made by the later Mr. Paul Lawson, the claim was made that the professor's wife was his wife's grandfather, He was assisted in the DNA work by Dr. Colleen Fitzpatrick. In 2022 the Professor ruled that option out and withdrew the claim.

Claim 3, surrounds the examination of a rootless hair shaft provided by Professor Abbott again assisted by Dr. Collen Fitzpatrick,

In an article published by Professor Abbott in the IEEE Spectrum Magazine in March 2023. while a rootless 5 cm long hair ample is mentioned as the one sent to Astrea Labs in the US who are regarded as being at the forefront of technology in rootless hair DNA identification. No mention is made in the article of where that hair sample came from nor when it was taken or by whom.

All previous attempts at gathering useful DNA had failed.

Other efforts have failed, and so to zero in on the 'owner, of the hair sample, Professor Abbott used a process known as 'Imputation'. 

We refer to the following articles regarding the use of Imputation:

In the literature, when more than 10% of data are missing, estimates are likely to be biased (9). Source:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8426774/#:~:text=In%20a%20literature%2C%20when%20more,to%20be%20biased%20(9).

Importantly, the size, data quality, and haplotype diversity of imputation reference panels determine the accuracy of genotype imputation². Target populations more genetically related to the reference populations will have better imputation accuracy compared to those more distantly related. Source:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10245797/#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20the%20size%2C%20data%20quality,to%20those%20more%20distantly%20related.

Scientists use the genotype imputation method to fill in missing information when they're looking at someone's DNA code. Occasionally, it's not possible to read the genotype of a specific DNA marker, so imputation is used to infer the identity of a missing marker based on the surrounding DNA.

The Photographs

When reflecting on the available information regarding the identity of the Somerton Man, one of comparing Carl Webb to the SM is to look at images of both persons. Below is a comparison of the younger Carl Webb, an older Carl Webb, and the Somerton Man:

There are a number of differences shown between the Carl Webb images an that of the Somerton Man. The ear in particular appears to be markedly different.

It has been said that our ears change as we age, this is true however, these changes do not occur until around the age of 40 years and they present as a lengthening of the ear lobe. Apparently, the structure of the ear does not change.

In the comparison images above, the Somerton Man has a distinct ear lobe shape which cuts in sharply to the side of his jaw. In contrast, the images of Carl Webb/s ear show a long and tapered outer and inner helix.

SAPOL

About the ongoing SAPOL investigatory work for the coroner, my understanding is that they collect data and information from a wide range of witnesses across multiple aspects of the case. The information is examined carefully and forwarded in the Police Report to the Coroner.  In this case, the coroner's brief is to ascertain the identity of the Somerton Man and not the circumstances leading up to his death. Information can be submitted at any time up to the coroner's review of the information, even then, if significant new information is forthcoming that either identifies the man or leads to his identification, it will be reviewed.

To conclude, the case is by no means an open-and-shut one about the Carl Webb claim. The evidence supporting it is not conclusive as you have read. The only way in which the exhumed remains can be identified as the Somerton Man is by matching the dental chart taken by Dr Dwyer.

Given that the Police Forensics team can retrieve the jaw bones and create a dental chart, if that dental chart does not match then the body is not that of the Somerton Man. That is a completely different can of worms to consider.

If the chart matches the exhumed remains, the mystery carries on as a direct result of the finding of known codes and ciphers, how did they get there?

I hope this post is of interest, please feel free to comment.