THE CARL WEBB SAGA

### PART 1: THE BACKGROUND

Much has been written on the Somerton Man topic over the years and it does seem that Professor Derek Abbott of Adelaide University has been one of the main sources of information on the possible identity of the body of the man found on Somerton Beach on December 1st 1948. This post reviews the claim of the Professor that the body found on Somerton Beach was a Carl 'Charles' Webb, a humble electrician who suddenly went missing in 1947. But this was not the first such claim made by the Professor.

### THE FIRST CLAIM; THE SOMERTON MAN WAS THE GRANDFATHER OF PROFESSOR ABBOTT'S WIFE...

It should be understood that Carl Webb claim was in fact the second claim by the Professor. He had previously claimed that the man on the beach was in fact his wide's grandfather. He had arrived at that conclusion based on DNA analysis results. A genealogist, Dr. Colleen Fitzpatrick, had been enlisted to help the Professor in establishing this first claim. The DNA had apparently come from 2 sources, the first was from members of his wife's family (and presumably the professor's wife) and the second samples came from hairs that were extracted from the plaster bust that was made, it is said, of the upper body of the man found on the beach. But was it made of that body or another? This is one of the aspects that we will cover later in this post. There was a great deal of publicity and media coverage surrounding this claim but in the end, another genealogist was able to disprove the initial claim. The hair samples from the bust also apparently showed traces of various elements including lead and some say, strontium 90. I suspect the latter is incorrect. Thus we have hair samples from the bust containing DNA that was analysed and presumably the reports on those samples still exist although they are not mentioned specifically in the most recent claims that Carl Webb was the Somerton Man.

It is assumed that the hair samples used at that time had the roots attached based on the fact that rootless hair analysis only became generally available in 2019.

Thus we have DNA samples and presumably a report based on the hairs extracted from the plaster bust of the Somerton Man. The key element here is that the hair samples came from the plaster bust. It is not known whether there were any additional samples left and whether they were kept.

### THE BODY ON THE BEACH:

*THE FINDING OF THE BODY:* Here will will look at the critical, core evidence surrounding the finding of the body which was found on Somerton Beach at around 6 a.m. on Wednesday, December 1st 1948. The issue of the contents of the man's pockets will not be covered here, that will be discussed in detail in another article.

It was a warm day and sunrise was at 4.55 am. The high tide, a Spring tide and the highest of the year, was 9 feet and it occurred at 4.34 am that same morning. We can assume that at 4.34 am it was still dark apart from perhaps a low pre-dawn light.

In August 2021, News.com.au ran a story about an 84 year old man named as Victorian resident Roger Todd, who said that whilst he was just a child, just 11 years old, he recalled that whilst taking his dog for a walk on Somerton Beach at around 7 am, he saw the body of a man on Somerton Beach [1.]. On returning home he told his mother of what he had seen and it was she that apparently, who may have made the first call to the Police. Subsequently two ambulances and police cars had arrived. In those years there was no separate Ambulance service in South Australia, that task fell to the Police to provide. (Link at base of this article)

The official story published in the press [2.], [3.] and quoted in the University of Adelaide wiki at the time make no mention of Rodger's discovery and the calls made by his mother. Instead they talk of the body being found at around 6.30 am by two strappers out exercising their horses plus a local; resident Mr. John Lyons, who had also placed a call to the Police, and the arrival of a Constable Moss who was the first officer to be involved in the case, at around 6.45 a.m.. It was Constable Moss who accompanied the body to Royal Adelaide Hospital where he was pronounced dead by a Dr John Barkley Bennett who, coincidentally, according to researchers, was a first cousin to Carl Webb. Dr Bennett did not mention his relationship to the deceased man if in fact this was true.

Constable Moss in his statement to the Inquest held in June 1949, stated that the body, which was found with its head propped against the low sea wall at the scene was cold and damp and the sand around the body was not 'unduly disturbed' the body had not been in the water.

In 2021, the author of this article with the invaluable input and advice of a Glenelg Based tidal expert, Dr. John Luick, conducted extensive research into the issues of the tide on the night of 30th November/1st December 1948 [4.]. It was found that the tide that night would have reached the low sea wall. It follows that the body and the clothes it was wearing should have been wet. Based on this information the body must have been placed there after the tide had turned at 4.34 am. It is important to note that the only way to confirm the tide reaching the wall that morning was to have had a timed video recording of the event which is not the case. Therefore this claim should be regarded as 'the next best thing' to having such a video.

## The Plaster Bust & The Circumstances

The plaster bust was requested by the Coroner at the time, Mr. Cleland. The circumstances are that SA Police contacted the local Museum and requested that one of their employees, a taxidermist, Mr. Paul Lawson, be made available to them to create a plaster bust of the man whose body had been found on the beach at Somerton on December 1st 1948.

### The Paul Lawson Diary

The documentation that exists surrounding the events is minimal but it does include the diary of the late Mr. Paul Lawson, OAM covering the time period concerned which spans from June 1st 1949 to July 26th 1949. There are gaps between entries and there are just ten pages available. **Click here for link to pdf of the actual diary**

### Diary Entry Transcript:

**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 original body

Casting of ears 7 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),

**9th June**

Piecing together mold

Filling mold with plaster

Breaking away plaster mold.

**10th June**

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

Writing 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)

### Issues arising from the diary entries:

On reading through the diaries there are certain entries that leave questions and they are listed here:

#### June 8th.

1. '*Ring from Constable Dinham re disposal of original body'* The similarity between the name Dinham and Durham was addressed and it was found that there was in fact a Constable Dinham' It is possible, though not proven, that there was a second body. Read more on this later in this article.
2. The types of plaster used are described in this entry and it is known that the plaster selected was of the type used to create 're-usable' molds
3. The creating of the ears presented an issue which was indicated by the underlining of the words in this entry. (See later 'Discussions with Paul Lawson')

#### June 15th.

Detective Brown, Noblett, Detective Sgt Leane

Finishing off cast of Somerton Man

Dr. Cleland, inspected cast

*Mr. NBT inspected cast*, it is not clear who Mr. NBT was.

### June 17th.

*Canberra number 192 or 275.* A check on Trove revealed no numbers listed in adverts or articles. Unknown at this stage, follow up required perhaps Canberra City Directory for 1949.

### June 22nd.

*Discussion with Director re duplicate casts of Somerton body* No mention is made in this diary of any follow up on this particular matter. Marked for interest and addressed in 'Discussions with Paul Lawson' to follow.

## The Face On The Bust Was Modelled On The Autopsy Photographs

In a series of interviews with Paul Lawson, he made known that he had been told to model the face on the bust on the Police autopsy photographs because the facial features on the body of which he was about to make a plaster bust, did not match the face of the Somerton Man whose images had been widely published. This tends to fit with the diary entry regarding the possible existence of another body.

In another interview, Paul explained how he had been requested by the Cleland to remove the skull of the body he had been working on. He commenced to do that and noticed two things, Firstly that the suture work was extremely fine and professionally done which surprised him. Secondly when he had peeled back the skin and saw inside the skull, it was completely clean, there was no sign of any organic material, it had been boiled clean. Before he removed the skull a detective entered and told him to stop what he was doing as the body was going to be immediately buried. This gives rise to the possibility that the skull that Paul had seen was not that which belonged to the body, it may have been swapped. Note that it is a possibility and not a probability, that question may be resolved by the current Police forensic examination of the body.

## The Carl Webb Ears Do Not Match Those Of The Somerton Man

Only three photographs of Carl Webb have been published, one of him as a young football player, around 11 years of age and two more which were taken at a family gathering. The ear shape of all three images does not match the ear of the Somerton Man, In the Webb photographs, the left ear shows a tapered outer helix which joins smoothly into the left side of the jaw. In contrast, the left ear of the Somerton Man commences in a circular fashion and then 'squares off' into the side of the jaw. It has been suggested that the apparent different shape of the ears noted in the images was the result of ageing. It is true to say that our ears change as we age but that change relates to the softening of the cartilage in the ears which makes the skin sag a little with studies concluding that the ear length is affected to the extent of .22mm per year [8.]. The configuration of the ear does not change, but it appears to grow longer. In the case of the Somerton Man, his left ear is square cut into the side of the jaw whilst the images of Carl Webb show that his ears are tapered gradually into the jaw.

In the comparison image we have an example of a man's tapered right ear with that of the right ear of the Somerton Man. Note that the example is not that of Carl Webb, it is an example of a tapered ear which is similar to that of Carl Webb it is for illustration purposes only. It is not known whether there are any other photographs of Carl Webb in existence.
The only images are those that have been shown on the ABC TV website and they apparently had been AI enhanced with the exception of the younger football playing Carl Webb image.

## How Did The Hair Samples Survive?

Hair samples and their subsequent analysis are at the heart of the claim that Carl Webb was the Somerton Man. But how did those samples survive?

To clarify this issue, it is known that the Laurie Elliot, a well respected man and the funeral director who carried out the embalming of the body, used amongst other embalming fluids, formaldehyde. This chemical is known to destroy DNA. Laurie paid 50 visits to the morgue between December 10th 1948 and March 15th. 1949 to monitor and top up the embalming fluids. The body must surely have been awash with formaldehyde and yet somehow against all the odds, In a 2015 article and interview with phys.org, this comment was made:

*"More importantly, however, this successful DNA test shows that viable DNA is still present that has not been contaminated by the formaldehyde embalming fluid. This evidence is one of the requirements needed for petitioning for an exhumation." [5.]*

In that first sentence the whole notion of the effects of formaldehyde were dismissed. It is more than reasonable to expect an in depth explanation as to how any hair survived the dousing in a chemical known to destroy DNA.

In addition, there is the question of the use of mortuary soap during the creation of the plaster bust. In an interview with Paul Lawson, he made it very clear that he had used mortuary soap to plaster down the hair on the man's head in order to prevent it getting 'tangled up' with the mold which would have made it impossible to separate the mold from the body. He also used it to wash down the body in preparation for the mold making process. Mortuary soap contains sodium hypochlorite, it is a bleaching agent and it destroys DNA. It is just that property that is relied upon by DNA analysis labs and other forensic establishments to thoroughly clean all surfaces used in their various processes and particularly in the case of DNA analysis. Professor Abbott is also on record as having spoken to Paul Lawson and he was also told by Paul that he had used mortuary soap on the hair and body.

Is it possible for any usable DNA to have survived the known effects of formaldehyde and sodium hypochlorite? [6]

In an April 2023 article in the IEEE Spectrum magazine, Professor Abbott described the process of how, in 2012, hair samples were retrieved by a hair forensics expert, Janette Edson. [7.] This description conflicts with a statement made by Colleen Fitzpatrick the genealogist whom had been involved with the earlier claims regarding the relationship between Professor Abbot's wife and the Somerton Man. In recent times she had reportedly stated that the Police gave Professor Abbott a bag of hair samples and from which a single hair shaft of 50mm in length had been taken. It was purportedly this rootless hair sample that was sent to Astrea Pharmaceuticals for analysis having previously tested numerous other samples with a negative result. the 50 mm sample was the last of the hair samples thus when it was sent there were no further samples available. Somehow that 50mm sample miraculously had survived the continual dousing in formaldehyde and the use of mortuary soap on the head of the man from which the sample had been taken.

In the article, according to the Professor stated that the linking of the DNA results to Carl Webb did not come from the Astrea Lab analysis, it actually came from an engineering method known as imputation, imputation does not give a 100% accurate result and is therefore not reliable.

## The Dental Chart

Dr. Dwyer, the man who performed the autopsy on the body of the man found on Somerton Beach, took the opportunity to create a handwritten but detailed dental chart of the man's teeth.

This dental chart was submitted by Dr.Dwyer as part of his evidence to the original June 1949 inquest. It shows that the man had 18 missing teeth. To quote from the inquest evidence, 'if the man had laughed you would have noticed that he had missing front teeth'.

On researching this aspect of the evidence, it was found that so many missing teeth would be regarded as unusual. Common causes of tooth loss were gum disease found in ex POWs and radiation sickness which would cause teeth to fall out and exposure deliberate or accidental to various chemical weapons. Dr Dwyer did not give an opinion as to why so many were missing, he did not say whether there was evidence of gum disease or extraction work. He just states that the teeth were missing. The coroner did not mention the issue of the missing teeth in his findings.

The correct term for so many missing teeth is OLOGODONTIA, a condition where more than 6 teeth are missing. The statistics say that between .1% and.2% of the population would have had this condition. The link between tooth loss and radiation poisoning has long been known but whether it was widely known in 1948 or was being kept secret for reasons of national security is another matter.

There is documented evidence available :

*[9.]The Legacy of Early Uranium Efforts in Australia, 1906–1945: From Radium Hill to the Atomic Bomb and Today*

*Gavin M. Mudd*

*Institute of Sustainable Water Resources, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Vic. 3800, Australia.*

*Email: gavin.mudd@eng.monash.edu.au*

Here's an extract of relative information:

*'A residential house, apparently in inner-suburban Adelaide, was discovered to be contaminated with radium in the early 1980s, the late resident having been a laboratory technician for radium production from Mount Painter in the 1920s (presumably at Dry Creek). The problem was identified after a ‘radium needle’ was found. One room where ‘some laboratory work’ was probably performed contained some 10 MBq of radium (~0.28 mg). It was concluded that the radium had been in solution and had been heated in the fireplace and spilled on the floor. The contamination data is given in Table 3. After cleaning the chimney and removal of the floorboards, the residual contamination was not thought to be a significant risk, and no further action was taken. The radioactive wastes were dumped at an unnamed ‘industrial waste disposal site’. The Dry Creek wastes were dumped at Radium Hill during this time though there are no data on the public record concerning waste volumes or level of radioactivity.*

*Passmore, ‘Radioactivity in a Private Residence’, Radiation Protection in Australia, 1(2) (1983), 52, 54;*

*O’Neil, Above and Below, p. 375. The dump site was most likely the radioactive waste facility at Radium Hill, gazetted in April 1981 though with no environmental impact assessment.*

*Contact us*

*ARPS Secretariat, PO Box 18, Mooroolbark Victoria 3138, Australia'*

No doubt the Police forensic team will be looking closely at the missing teeth issue as it is the only physical evidence that can directly link the exhumed remains to the Somerton Man. Further, given Paul Lawson's information regarding a possible replacement of the skull, that would in turn mean that if the teeth were matched, then DNA from other parts of the body would be needed to confirm or otherwise the identity of the remains.

\*NOTE The issue of missing teeth has not been raised in any of the materials published nor mentioned by Professor Abbott regarding the Carl Webb case. The issue was raised with the professor at the time of the earlier claim of a family connection and regarding the 'anodontia' statements but they were dismissed as being incorrect stating that Dr. Dwyer must have made a mistake.

## Conclusion

On bringing together all of the information, the making of the bust, the ear comparisons, the issue of how the hair samples were harvested and subsequently managed and the matter of the dental chart, a more comprehensive picture emerges of the history of the claims regarding Carl Webb being the Somerton Man and that picture could not be described as conclusive. It appears that there are numerous aspects of the evidence that need to be more closely examined. As to the question of whether Carl Webb was the Somerton Man or, for that matter if he was the man whose remains were exhumed is a decision for the SA Coroner based on all the evidence including that from SA Police forensics unit.

[1.] I Saw His Dead Body. News.com.au

[2.] Dead Man Found Lying on Somerton Beach. THE NEWS

[3.] Body Found On Beach. THE ADVERTISER

[4.] The Shifting Sands Of Somerton Beach. TAMAMSHUD.BLOGSPOT

[5.] DNA, Isotopes and Autopsy, PHYS.ORG

[6.] The DNA Issue. TAMAMSHUD.BLOGSPOT

[7.] Somerton Man, IEEE SPECTRUM

[8.] Ear growth. SCIENCE DIRECT

[9.] The missing teeth. THE LEGACY OF EARLY URANIUM EFFORTS CSIRO