The Carl Webb Claim Rebuttal Reviewed & Updated

Analysis of the "Somerton Man" Hair Sample

Some two years ago, possibly longer, I prepared and submitted an article to Academia. It was a Rebuttal of the Carl Webb claim that was made by Professor Abbott; he had actually posted his work on the IEEE Spectrum Magazine website, here: https://spectrum.ieee.org/somerton-man

He later published an academic article on the members-only pages of the same website but one has to be an engineer to access that, and so a formal rebuttal must wait until when or if the full claim is made.

Here's a summary of that paper:
Background: In 2022, Professor Derek Abbott announced the identification of the Somerton Man, an unidentified individual found deceased on Somerton Beach, Adelaide, in 1948, as Charles "Carl" Webb, based on DNA analysis of hair samples said to have been extracted from a plaster death mask created in 1949.

Objective: This paper examines the methodological rigor, evidentiary foundation, and scientific protocols employed in the Webb identification, with particular attention to forensic hair analysis, chain of custody documentation, statistical population analysis, and historical artifact construction practices.

Methods: Critical analysis of published materials, forensic hair microscopy, demographic modeling of potential candidate populations, and evaluation of standard forensic protocols were conducted. Additionally, historical research into mid-20th-century plaster bust fabrication practices was undertaken to assess potential contamination pathways. Results:

The analysis reveals multiple fundamental concerns: 1. Microscopic evidence of ante mortem root banding (AMRB) in hair samples claimed to be from 1948 2. Absence of documented chain of custody for DNA samples 3. Failure to test direct Webb family members 4. No cross-referencing between 2018 and 2022 DNA analyses 5. Reliance on a single undocumented sample 6. Statistical analysis indicating approximately 9,764 potential candidates from the relevant demographic cohort 7. Historical evidence supporting the use of human hair from living donors in plaster bust fabrication Conclusions: The Webb identification fails to meet standard forensic science protocols for human identification. The convergence of methodological irregularities, missing verification procedures, and physical evidence inconsistencies-including the plausible incorporation of non-forensic hair into the bust-raises substantial questions regarding the validity of this identification claim.

Having said that, two issues arose, and while I addressed them, I have to admit I made an assumption and did not fully substantiate my findings.

The first issue concerns the magnified image of the hair, which the Professor stated was from the Somerton Man. That specific image is shown here:

I had a problem with this issue from the outset because the shaft of hair sent to Astrea Forensics was rootless. As you will read, that does not stand up because the banding you can clearly see in the image above is close to the distal, or tip, end of the hair sample, not near the root, where post-mortem banding is commonly found. We were also told that this rootless shaft of hair was 5 cms in length. The image above was taken using a microscope, and when analysed, the distance between the hair tip and the end of the dark banding was approximately .3 mm. I was able to calculate that using a pixel measurement method. That distance places it well away from a root bulb, which would have been more than 4.7 cms away

The Professor asserted that this hair was from the Somerton Man, and went on to explain that this image was of the hair root showing the darkened area known as PMB or post-mortem banding that can appear a few hours after death. In the Rebuttal document. I explained that the image shown did not appear to be of the root area, and its appearance suggests that the banding was close to the distal tip of the hair, the other end of the hair from the root.

Now this is where the updated information comes into play. In my earlier paper, I stated that the presence of banding nearer the distal tip is known as antemortem banding, which would indicate that the hair shown came from a live subject and not a dead person. That much was true. But the deep analysis carried out recently resulted in the finding that the banding may not have had anything to do with post- or ante-mortem banding at all; it was to do with a chemical reaction.


Let me explain: if you look at the magnified image on the left really closely, you will see the dark inner cortex of the hair; it leads from one end of the hair up to the dark 'banding' area, Before it reached that band, I measured its width and noted that when it entered the banded area, that cortex expanded to match the apparent 'bulge' of the banding that you can see. 

It is known that a human hair is thickest at the root where it leaves the follicle and then gradually tapers towards the distal end, the hair tip. As you can observe in the image below, the dark banding appears to be close to the tapered or tip of the hair sample; in fact, it is .3mm away from the tip or distal end. The hair actually has a 9% taper from the band to the tip, which you can see.




A good question is, why is that tapering important? The answer is that human hair is thickest at its root and then tapers down to the tip or distal end as you can see in the above image.

So let's run through the sums, the sample taken was 5 cms or 50mm in length, The distance between the band and the hair tip is .3 mm, that means that the root bulb was 49 mm away but of course that would be impossible in this case beacuse the hair sample was rootless.

What caused the Banding?

Another good question! Here's the answer: it was volumetric swell caused by 1940s high-pH ammonium hydroxide salon treatment. It was a common treatment used for ladies' hair in those years. That would seem to indicate that the hair in this image was from a female. On that point, while it would have been possible to ascertain the sex of the owner of the hair sample sent to Astrea, that was not done as part of the test.

Why the Hairs "Stand on End": Capillary Action

Close-up photos of the crown of the plaster bust show hair strands sticking straight up out of the plaster. While early observers assumed this was a snapshot of the corpse's natural hair, fluid mechanics tells a very different story:

• The Capillary Pull: When dry, loose hair is laid onto wet, liquid plaster, a physical force called capillary action takes over.

• The liquid in the wet plaster draws itself along the outside of the dry hair fibers. As the plaster dries and sets, this upward capillary pull forces individual loose strands outward and upward, making them stand on end along the crest of the head.
  
  

  

This physical behavior confirms these were loose, dry strands added into wet plaster, rather than natural scalp hair pressed down during the molding process. 

Those familiar with this blog will recall that the man who made the Plaster Buist, Paul Lawson, stated clearly that he had used mortuary soap to hold the man's hair in place to ensure that his hair did not get tangled with the mold or the bust. The standing hairs shown in the image were not from the Somerton Man; his hair had been plastered down with mortuary soap for just that reason.

The Tamam Shud blog is dedicated to uncovering the forensic realities of the Somerton Man case. Our mission is not to speculate, but to reconstruct the events of 1948 using primary documents, scientific modelling, and expert analysis. While the man's true identity may remain a mystery, our focus is on the evidence that reveals how he died and the networks involved. To ensure the integrity of this research, we rely solely on verifiable sources and citations, strictly excluding anonymous blog comments and forum speculation from our data.