Unsolved Taman Shud Case - The Somerton Man

[Redacted]

Just when one has thought that we know of all the enigmas and mysteries of 1948 in Australia and could be satisfied that no more of such could be hiding ...

 

[Redacted]

A new podcast about the Somerton Man

Login to your Podbean Account | Podbean

Log into Podbean to start podcasting. Get everything you need for a successful podcast.

piperandbyrnes.podbean.com

 

[squawk]

A new podcast about the Somerton Man

Login to your Podbean Account | Podbean

Log into Podbean to start podcasting. Get everything you need for a successful podcast.

piperandbyrnes.podbean.com

Is it any good?

 

[zedx]

Is it any good?

Just listened to it now, nothing new, except the last half is little interesting. Its only 13 minutes.

 

[squawk]

I wonder when the Coroner will get around to scheduling an inquest for the hearing? It’s been over two years now I think, since the Somerton Man was exhumed from his grave….

 

[GreyCrow]

I wonder when the Coroner will get around to scheduling an inquest for the hearing? It’s been over two years now I think, since the Somerton Man was exhumed from his grave….

I would suggest its still a matter of identity

 

[zedx]

I would suggest its still a matter of identity

IIRC the pod cast above states the DNA was not sufficient to identify him???

 

[GreyCrow]

IIRC the pod cast above states the DNA was not sufficient to identify him???

I have not listened to that one

My comment was more about the delay and the reason for it. I dont think the Coroner would open an inquest until they have sufficient proof of identity

 

[zedx]

I have not listened to that one

My comment was more about the delay and the reason for it. I dont think the Coroner would open an inquest until they have sufficient proof of identity

Yes, agree, Im not sure where to podcast people are getting their info from because as far as I am aware the DNA results have not been released???

 

[Gordon1552]

Yes, agree, Im not sure where to podcast people are getting their info from because as far as I am aware the DNA results have not been released???

From what I know, the DNA results they refer to are the ones provided by Professor Abbott. When you look at those results you’ll find that the article posted on the IEEE Spectrum magazine (https://spectrum.ieee.org/somerton-man) by Professor Abbott does not make any mention of where when and how that particular single rootless shaft of hair was found and retrieved. It's true to say that he mentioned some shafts were collected but that was in 2015 and as the Professor said in his article dated March 2023, he had that particular sample foe 10 years, the question being where did it come from? The other issue to bear in mind is that the only evidence was that single rootless shaft of hair which is gone now so it cannot be verified. I would suggest that this is what DrXanthe Mallet was referring to when she pointedly said that she is a forensic scientist and believed that we may never know the identity of the Somerton Man. That doesn’t mean that we should give up trying though. GreyCrow, I echo your statement that one of the reasons for the inquest delay may be the identity question. I think there are probably others

 

[zedx]

From what I know, the DNA results they refer to are the ones provided by Professor Abbott. When you look at those results you’ll find that the article posted on the IEEE Spectrum magazine (https://spectrum.ieee.org/somerton-man) by Professor Abbott does not make any mention of where when and how that particular single rootless shaft of hair was found and retrieved. It's true to say that he mentioned some shafts were collected but that was in 2015 and as the Professor said in his article dated March 2023, he had that particular sample foe 10 years, the question being where did it come from? The other issue to bear in mind is that the only evidence was that single rootless shaft of hair which is gone now so it cannot be verified. I would suggest that this is what DrXanthe Mallet was referring to when she pointedly said that she is a forensic scientist and believed that we may never know the identity of the Somerton Man. That doesn’t mean that we should give up trying though. GreyCrow, I echo your statement that one of the reasons for the inquest delay may be the identity question. I think there are probably others

Thank you. IIRC the hair in question was from the death mask and was of such poor quality that the DNA was incomplete and that is why it was decided to exhume the body for further DNA testing which at this point (IMOO) appears to also have given an incomplete result, thus why there has been no formal identification. Agree in that we may never know who he is and this is why the inquest has been so delayed.

 

[Gordon1552]

There's something of a challenge in the timeline on the IEEE Spectrum magazine, it's not that it's suspicious, more a case of it's hard to follow.

The professor stated that in 2022 he submitted the rootless hair shaft to Astrea Labs on the advice of Colleen Fitzpatrick. He also said he had held on to the best hair root sample(?) for ten years. That then suggests/implies that the sample was taken in 2012 by Janet Edson. Now that coincides with the year that hair samples were taken and all of them were of no use. Here's the snip from the article:

In 2022, at the suggestion of Colleen Fitzpatrick, a former NASA employee who had trained as a nuclear physicist but then became a forensic genetics expert, I sent a hair sample to Astrea Forensics, a DNA lab in the United States. This was our best hair-root sample, one that I had nervously guarded for 10 years. The result from Astrea came back—and it was a big flop.

Seemingly out of options, we tried a desperate move. We asked Astrea to analyze a 5-centimeter-long shaft of hair that had no root at all. Bang! The company retrieved 2 million SNPs. The identity of the Somerton Man was now within our reach.

The colored sentence above is the puzzling one. It talks of a 5-centimeter-long shaft of hair that had no root at all. You might think this is nitpicking but is it? There is no connection shown between that rootless shaft of hair and the samples collected 10 years earlier or at any other time. Where did that sample come from?

The challenge is that when a scholar presents a paper via the official publication of the IEEE which contains significant and detailed information, you would expect that there would be no loose ends, yet this is exactly what has happened.

If the Professor demonstrates that the hair was taken in 2012 by saying who, where, when, and how the sample was taken and preserved, then all is well, almost. Another question relates to the issue of what other samples of hair the professor took, when were they taken by whom, and from whom? The answer to the latter question could eliminate any accidental cross-over of samples. The assumption here is that other samples of hair were taken at some time in the process and possibly from Webb's descendants.

The questions posed are no more than those you would expect in a normal investigation focused on finding the truth of a matter.

 

[zedx]

There's something of a challenge in the timeline on the IEEE Spectrum magazine, it's not that it's suspicious, more a case of it's hard to follow.

The professor stated that in 2022 he submitted the rootless hair shaft to Astrea Labs on the advice of Colleen Fitzpatrick. He also said he had held on to the best hair root sample(?) for ten years. That then suggests/implies that the sample was taken in 2012 by Janet Edson. Now that coincides with the year that hair samples were taken and all of them were of no use. Here's the snip from the article:

In 2022, at the suggestion of Colleen Fitzpatrick, a former NASA employee who had trained as a nuclear physicist but then became a forensic genetics expert, I sent a hair sample to Astrea Forensics, a DNA lab in the United States. This was our best hair-root sample, one that I had nervously guarded for 10 years. The result from Astrea came back—and it was a big flop.

Seemingly out of options, we tried a desperate move. We asked Astrea to analyze a 5-centimeter-long shaft of hair that had no root at all. Bang! The company retrieved 2 million SNPs. The identity of the Somerton Man was now within our reach.

The colored sentence above is the puzzling one. It talks of a 5-centimeter-long shaft of hair that had no root at all. You might think this is nitpicking but is it? There is no connection shown between that rootless shaft of hair and the samples collected 10 years earlier or at any other time. Where did that sample come from?

The challenge is that when a scholar presents a paper via the official publication of the IEEE which contains significant and detailed information, you would expect that there would be no loose ends, yet this is exactly what has happened.

If the Professor demonstrates that the hair was taken in 2012 by saying who, where, when, and how the sample was taken and preserved, then all is well, almost. Another question relates to the issue of what other samples of hair the professor took, when were they taken by whom, and from whom? The answer to the latter question could eliminate any accidental cross-over of samples. The assumption here is that other samples of hair were taken at some time in the process and possibly from Webb's descendants.

The questions posed are no more than those you would expect in a normal investigation focused on finding the truth of a matter.

IMO, Abbott wants to believe his wife is related to the Sommerton and therefore has (seemed to) omit/be unclear about any information that does not fit his narrative.

 

[Gordon1552]

Some news, well not exactly fresh but recently uncovered is probably a better description. In a post on the Tshud blog, I wrote about Journalist Pat Burgess. He had written several articles on the Somerton Man going back to 1968. I followed through on that and found another reference to Pat's articles, this one was in Gerry Feltus' book The Unknown Man, you can find it on Page 194, Appendix 10. He refers to the issue of DNA testing and he makes specific mention of a Pat Burgess article reported to him by another in which Pat had mentioned his discovery of hair in the plaster bust which explains the photo attached here taken around 1970 where Pat is seen examining the bust on the left eyebrow. The bottom line is that first Pat Burgess and then Gerry Feltus noticed the hair in the bust and that its color was 'pale ginger'. Professor Abbott came along in 2011 and announced he had found hair in the bust. That hair was later declared as being 'light brown' in colour. See the IEEE article here https://spectrum.ieee.org/somerton-man

It's worth reading Gerry's book if you have a copy or can get hold of one.

 

[Redacted]

Mohammad Tamdgidi has made another statement

https://www.abc27.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/703090579/rest-of-australias-somerton-man-case-mystery-solved-using-his-own-code-as-deciphered-in-2021-okcir-sociologist-reports/

 

[Redacted]

His claims to decipher the Somerton Man code were published here

https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/aw/d/B09H4XLMVJ/

 

[Anzacpaul]

 

[zedx]

Amazing! Do we now think this has been resolved???

 

[CD Xbow]

Amazing! Do we now think this has been resolved???

I think this is as good a explanation for the code as you will ever get. The odds of the this being a random relationship is astronomical.

 

[Redacted]

I think this is as good a explanation for the code as you will ever get. The odds of the this being a random relationship is astronomical.

Even if it is, it doesn't explain why, unfortunately.

So someone would need to figure out what's the routes significance to explain what he's doing in Adelaide, like who's he seeing, which I'd expect this code to also mention and rendezvous times and addresses if it is a set of route maps. I suppose one could say that he would've been looking for only one person, his ex wife, but if that was true then his proximity to Jessica's and her phone number probably suggests that it would be unlikely that this code is only to search for his missus. And why more than one route? And is the route to Somerton Park covered by the code? I think that travelling to a certain train station is somewhat deficient if you are looking for a particular person. He'd need addresses to try not just suburbs.
Therefore I think it needs more work tbh.

 

[GreyCrow]

Even if it is, it doesn't explain why, unfortunately.

So someone would need to figure out what's the routes significance to explain what he's doing in Adelaide,

I wonder if its just noting the stations. Some seem random. Its not linear. ie he doesnt go Adelaide Brighton Adelaide Brighton - its Adelaide Brighton Brighton Adelaide . Glenelg is a tram stop in the middle of all those Train stations

The 2nd and 4th one are definitely not linear ( Cheltenham is more adjacent to Semaphore than Glenelg )

Therefore I think it needs more work tbh.

I dont mind the idea of it but I agree needs more work

 

[CD Xbow]

Even if it is, it doesn't explain why, unfortunately.

So someone would need to figure out what's the routes significance to explain what he's doing in Adelaide, like who's he seeing, which I'd expect this code to also mention and rendezvous times and addresses if it is a set of route maps. I suppose one could say that he would've been looking for only one person, his ex wife, but if that was true then his proximity to Jessica's and her phone number probably suggests that it would be unlikely that this code is only to search for his missus. And why more than one route? And is the route to Somerton Park covered by the code? I think that travelling to a certain train station is somewhat deficient if you are looking for a particular person. He'd need addresses to try not just suburbs.
Therefore I think it needs more work tbh.

It doesn't explain anything except what the code stands for. Because the code has never been deciphered and the improbability of so many letters being laid out the same way as the train lines and stations, we can be pretty confident we know now what the "code" represents. That's a big step forward. Any more than that is speculation, sure it could be trying to find Jessica, on the other hand he could be a train buff checking off lines he's been on. It eliminates nicely one of the reasons the spook angle got legs - the unbreakable code ('cause it's not a code!)

Assuming the DNA evidence is correct and he is Charles Webb, we know he was a troubled, suicidal man, split from his wife, who liked poetry, which fits with the "Tamám Shud" scrap. He also had a brother in law whose name matches the name on his clothes and explains the American gear. Another nail in the coffin of the spook theories.

I think most of the story has taken shape. The incongruous data is now explained and the poor fellow identified. The only major bit we don't understand is what his relationship to Jessica was. There are a few circumstantial reasons people think she knew him but denied it and there has been speculation that her child out of wedlock was Carl's but IIRC the DNA evidence was against it. I'm putting this one into the case closed file.

 

[Gordon332]

It doesn't explain anything except what the code stands for. Because the code has never been deciphered and the improbability of so many letters being laid out the same way as the train lines and stations, we can be pretty confident we know now what the "code" represents. That's a big step forward. Any more than that is speculation, sure it could be trying to find Jessica, on the other hand he could be a train buff checking off lines he's been on. It eliminates nicely one of the reasons the spook angle got legs - the unbreakable code ('cause it's not a code!)

Assuming the DNA evidence is correct and he is Charles Webb, we know he was a troubled, suicidal man, split from his wife, who liked poetry, which fits with the "Tamám Shud" scrap. He also had a brother in law whose name matches the name on his clothes and explains the American gear. Another nail in the coffin of the spook theories.

I think most of the story has taken shape. The incongruous data is now explained and the poor fellow identified. The only major bit we don't understand is what his relationship to Jessica was. There are a few circumstantial reasons people think she knew him but denied it and there has been speculation that her child out of wedlock was Carl's but IIRC the DNA evidence was against it. I'm putting this one into the case closed file.

Here's a link to an Academia paper on the issue of the Webb identification it explains why the Webb claim is flawed, it's free to download:

Methodological Concerns in the Carl Webb Identification of the Somerton Man A Critical Analysis of Forensic DNA Evidence and Research Protocols

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

www.academia.edu

 

[CD Xbow]

Here's a link to an Academia paper on the issue of the Webb identification it explains why the Webb claim is flawed, it's free to download:

Methodological Concerns in the Carl Webb Identification of the Somerton Man A Critical Analysis of Forensic DNA Evidence and Research Protocols

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

www.academia.edu

Thanks for posting, I know there are issues. I'll read it over the weekend.

 

[johnymac1]

I wonder if its just noting the stations. Some seem random. Its not linear. ie he doesnt go Adelaide Brighton Adelaide Brighton - its Adelaide Brighton Brighton Adelaide . Glenelg is a tram stop in the middle of all those Train stations

The 2nd and 4th one are definitely not linear ( Cheltenham is more adjacent to Semaphore than Glenelg )

I dont mind the idea of it but I agree needs more work

Standing Infront of the old Adelaide railway station board, he might have jotted the stations down.
G could be Goodwood. They are definitely out of order