A Questionable Claim....

 

Questions About the 2022 Identification Of The Somerton Man..

A Brief Background

In December 1948, an unknown man was found dead on Somerton Beach in Adelaide, Australia. He became known as the "Somerton Man" and sparked one of Australia's most enduring mysteries. In 2022, researcher Professor Derek Abbott published findings claiming that the case had been solved through DNA analysis, identifying the man as Carl "Charles" Webb. However, several scientific questions have arisen regarding the reliability of this identification, which warrant careful examination.

Examining the DNA Evidence

Professor Abbott's 2022 identification was based on DNA extracted from what was described as "a 50mm rootless shaft of hair" found inside a plaster bust of the deceased man's face in 1948. While this approach represents an innovative attempt to solve the mystery, several questions arise when examining the methodological foundation of this evidence.

Questions About Documentation Some important questions arise regarding the documentation of this crucial piece of evidence:

• When was the hair discovered within the bust?
• Where specifically was it located within the plaster?
• Who performed the extraction and using what methods?
• What chain of custody procedures were followed?
• Was independent verification conducted?

These gaps in documentation raise important questions about whether the evidence meets established forensic standards for reliability.

Understanding Historical Death Mask Procedures

To properly evaluate the likelihood of finding authentic hair within the plaster bust, it's important to understand how death masks were created in 1948. This historical context raises questions about whether organic material from the deceased would typically be incorporated into such casts.

The Standard Process. Whilst it is known and documented that Mr. Paul Lawson. The man who created the plaster bust.  used Mortuary Soap to plaster down the hair on the upper part of the man's body. Documented information from death mask creators at the time described how they would apply grease or oil to the deceased person's face and hair before applying plaster. As historical sources explain, "Once the plaster dried, the grease prevented any hair from being ripped off of the face and allowed the bandages to release easily from the skin."

The Somerton Man's Casting Process Research into the specific procedures used for the Somerton Man reveals that mortuary soap was used to "plaster down" the man's hair and eyebrows during casting. This raises an important scientific question: 1940s mortuary soap contained sodium hypochlorite—a chemical that destroys DNA through oxidative damage. This substance was present and applied during the casting process; the question raised is could authentic DNA have survived that process in analyzable form?

Historical evidence suggests that professionals creating death masks in the 1940s actively worked to exclude hair. When building materials incorporated organic reinforcement, although known to have been widely used, human hair was not recommended due to its structural limitations. This raises questions about how hair might have become incorporated into the bust. The evidence we have says that at the very least, the bust should be examined for the presence of multiple sources of human hair.

75 + Years of Environmental Exposure

A critical factor in evaluating the reliability of the DNA evidence is the bust's documented history of environmental exposure between 1948 and 2022. This extended timeline raises important questions about potential sources of contamination.

The Early Years (1948-1970s) The bust was stored in regular office environments where it would have been exposed to:

• Dust and particles in the air
• Skin cells and hair from office workers
• Cleaning materials
• General environmental debris

During this period, the bust is believed to have been under the control of its creator, Mr. Paul Lawson.

Public Exposure During the 1949 inquest, the bust was carried through Adelaide streets in the open air, exposing it to street dust, car emissions, and direct handling by multiple people.

Decades of Storage (1970s-2022) For almost 50 years, the bust was stored in various uncontrolled locations, including cupboards, storage rooms, and on open display. During this time:

• Dozens of people would have handled it during moves and examinations
• It was regularly cleaned with household materials, possibly including bleach to restore its white color
• Environmental DNA from countless sources accumulated on its porous surface
• No contamination prevention measures were ever implemented

The Science of Contamination

Modern forensic science knows that materials like plaster can easily trap and hold contaminating particles. Research shows that plaster's porous nature creates "improved pore interconnection" that can capture biological material over long periods.

Modern forensic science has established that materials like plaster can readily absorb and retain environmental contaminants. Research demonstrates that plaster's porous nature creates "improved pore interconnection" that can capture biological material over extended periods.

Given the 1940s plaster formulation, which potentially included the presence of human hair and 75 + years of environmental exposure, this raises the question: could any hair found within the plaster have originated from alternative sources, such as:

• Maintenance and cleaning personnel over seven decades
• Office workers in various storage locations
• Researchers and investigators who handled the bust
• Cross-contamination during multiple relocations
• Airborne particles from numerous environments

These possibilities warrant consideration when evaluating the source of any DNA evidence obtained from the bust.

Evaluating Maintenance and Cleaning Impacts

Photographic evidence shows that the bust appears to have undergone regular cleaning and maintenance over the decades. This maintenance history raises questions about potential DNA introduction through standard care procedures.

Regular dusting with cloth materials would introduce textile fibers and human DNA from cleaning personnel. Over 75 years, hundreds of people may have cleaned or handled the bust.

Chemical Treatment Considerations. Efforts to maintain the bust's appearance may have involved chemical cleaning agents. Scientific research indicates that cleaning with bleaching agents can cause DNA degradation and hypochlorite solutions can remove traces of amplifiable DNA. This raises questions about both the preservation of original DNA and the potential introduction of foreign genetic material through cleaning processes.

Cross-Contamination Each cleaning event was an opportunity for foreign DNA introduction, especially from cleaning cloths used on multiple surfaces.

What Forensic Science Standards Require

When evaluating the reliability of this DNA identification, it's important to consider whether the methodology aligns with established forensic science standards. Modern forensic protocols typically require:

• Extensive documentation of evidence storage conditions
• Baseline contamination testing
• Chain of custody documentation
• Independent verification procedures

Questions arise about whether these standards were fully implemented in the current case, and what implications this might have for the reliability of the conclusions drawn.

Considering Alternative Explanations

When evaluating any scientific conclusion, it's important to consider alternative explanations for the observed results. The presence of DNA matching Carl Webb's family line could potentially be explained through several mechanisms:

• Environmental contamination accumulated during 75 + years of exposure
• Cross-contamination during handling or storage procedures
• Statistical coincidence within the broader population genetics
• Inadvertent contamination from other genealogical research materials collected by Professor Abbot and his team

Given the bust's environmental history, these alternative explanations deserve serious consideration alongside the proposed identification. The question becomes: which explanation is most consistent with the available evidence and established scientific understanding?

Implications for Future Research

These methodological questions don't definitively disprove the possibility that the Somerton Man was Carl Webb. Rather, they highlight the importance of a professional, robust scientific methodology when making claims about historical mysteries. The scientific and serious researcher communities benefit from rigorous peer review and verification of extraordinary claims.

Recommendations for Further Investigation

Future research efforts might consider:

• Analysis focused on the exhumed remains rather than environmental artifacts
• Implementation of comprehensive contamination assessment protocols
• Complete documentation of all evidence handling procedures
• Independent verification by multiple laboratories
• Formal peer review of methodologies and findings

Conclusion

The 2022 identification of the Somerton Man as Carl Webb represents an important contribution to ongoing research into this historical mystery.

However, the scientific questions raised here about the reliability of the DNA evidence suggest that additional verification is warranted before this identification can be considered definitively established.

Rather than closing the case, these findings highlight the complexity of forensic analysis on historical materials and the importance of maintaining rigorous scientific standards. The Somerton Man case continues to provide valuable insights into both forensic methodology and the challenges of historical identification.

Importantly, this case may yet provide a new lens through which the historical events that led up to the finding of the man's body on Somerton Beach should be viewed. The Historical value alone of the information that we can gain from the Somerton Man Case is enormous.

The pursuit of truth in this matter benefits from continued scientific inquiry, the input of serious researchers, open discussion of methodological questions, and adherence to established forensic standards. It is only through such rigorous examination that we can hope to reach reliable conclusions about one of Australia's most enduring mysteries.

---

Key Sources:

• IEEE Spectrum article on the identification
• DNA degradation research ( https://digitalcommons.newhaven.edu/honorstheses/29/)
• Bleach effects on DNA
• Forensic DNA standards
• DNA contamination controls
•