How doubt gives way to clarity ..
If we were to think the bloodstains found on the Somerton Man’s shirt (refer Cleland’s notes) were caused by cross contamination when he was laid out and undressed on uncleaned morgue trolly after its previous occupant had been removed and refrigerated …
and
.. if we were to believe this cross contamination included the hair embedded in SM’s bust …
.. and
if we were to believe the source of this cross-contamination of hair and blood belonged to Carl ‘Charlie’ Webb then we must acknowledge Webb must have died on or about November 30th and his unidentified body was transferred to the Adelaide morgue prior to the unidentified body of SM joining him.
Yes? No? Maybe?
… or perhaps it’s shades of Lawson’s ‘original body.’
7 Comments
Post a comment
The Somerton Man .. 
and based on imagination and desire to say it is solved
when absolute proof that the DNA is Carl Webb’s is lacking
LikeLike
Judging by the plaster cast and the 3d scan I think they used another body! And they face swapped the body, that’s why I think the nurse almost fainted when she saw the body,cus she knew that wasn’t him.
LikeLike
She saw Boxall in the bust and dead
He was her handler and she was an asset
She was in shock thinking she had slipped up
LikeLike
Didn’t he die till 1995 or something?because I saw a video where they interview him about espionage, it looks like it was shot in the 80s.
LikeLike
Boxall wasn’t dead, but she saw him as dead
His image was used for a photo overlay
which also found its way on to the bust
when Lawson was given that photo to create the bust
LikeLike
Ohhh lol I see what you meant, but yeah I checked the photos and see the resemblance!
LikeLike
It’s a very interesting point – that the narrative gets contaminated by the direction people thought it was going.
But on the original post, I agree that the cross contamination is a great example of guesswork to explain away a storyline people don’t like – isn’t that what we all do to some degree**?
With no disrespect intended to Dr Fitzpatrick (holy moley, her PhD is Nuclear Physics), I’ll wait for the “professionals” to return their findings (which will most likely be “dunno couldn’t work out who this is”). There is so much that *could* affect the identity that Abbot and his mates ended up with – including (but not limited to) the hypotheticals this post highlights.
Abbott seems to have an ability to convince well-credentialed people to jump on his bandwagon – much like the Bioligical Anthropologist who was happy to add wight to the idea that SM might have been HC Reynolds. I’ve often wondered how much the Aboot ideas are contaminated because his title of “Professor” gets even very well educated people willing to endorse his ideas no matter how nonsensical….
**Every single “explanation”/story of SM that I have seen chooses which clues (I was going to say evidence) are absolutely critical, and which can be dismissed. That said, I think it’s likely that a lot of what we tend to focus on as critically important may turn out to be incidental, and a lot that we dismiss as irrelevant may prove to be significant – but I’m not sure whether it will ever be possible to categorically demonstrate which side of the fence particular clues lie on. Of course, that ain’t gonna stop anyone (me included) from speculating….
LikeLike