More Details Uncovered:
In this post, we discuss the latest updates and information about the Somerton Man Inquest and how new techniques may well have impacted and contributed to the apparent delay in the completion of the current Inquest.
The sculpted plaster bust of the Somerton Man certainly preserved his facial features, and, unintentionally, it also preserved other evidence, including strands of hair, some with roots, others without.
In 2022, some experts claimed to have identified the man based on a single rootless shaft of hair. But could one hair—without a root and with no clear record of where or when it was taken—really reveal the truth?
Thanks to major advances in science since 2020, the answer is more complex than ever—and more hopeful.
When Insects Carry Clues
Believe it or not, bugs that feed on human remains, including strands of hair, can contain DNA samples that they have consumed. In the past, scientists couldn’t extract this kind of evidence. But by 2023, forensic teams succeeded in getting human genetic markers like eye and hair color from the gut contents of fly larvae.
This science is known as 'Forensic entomology'
Insects like Lucilia sericata (the green bottle fly), scuttle flies, and others often visit remains within hours or perhaps over extended periods. Their digestive systems can trap tiny amounts of human DNA. Even insect droppings (frass), cocoons, or body fragments can now be used for testing. If any insect traces remain inside the Somerton Man bust, they could carry a hidden genetic signature even decades later.
Hair Without Roots Isn’t Hopeless Anymore
It used to be that only hairs with roots could give you a DNA profile. Rootless hairs—just the shaft—were considered useless.
That changed dramatically in 2020, and the use of the technique is not questioned; it's a matter of how the task was carried out as you will read.
New techniques recover DNA from the hair shaft using gene-capture technology and next-generation sequencing (NGS). A single rootless hair can now offer enough data to identify someone or trace them through relatives.
But now in 2025, labs can:
-
Predict eye and hair color,
-
Detect male or female DNA, and
-
Even map family trees through a method called forensic genetic genealogy.
None of the above three outputs were identified in the 2022 claim.
Could This Help in the Somerton Man Case?
Yes, but only if proper procedures are followed. Consider the following:
If hair samples from the bust exist, experts today could:
-
Extract DNA from both rooted and rootless hairs,
-
Check for DNA traces left on or inside insects found in the bust. This means that DNA could have not only been from hair samples but from human tissue fragments from the scalp or even from the people involved in the handling of the body or the making of the bust and via contamination thereafter.
-
Use modern STR and SNP testing to match a person or group,
-
Determine if multiple people contributed to the hair samples.
There’s a Catch… Or Several
The real world isn’t a clean laboratory. And we know that this bust was not kept in pristine or 'museum' conditions, as in a dust, bug, mite-free, or temperature and humidity-controlled environment.
For example, for many years it was kept in a series of open office spaces and on at least one occasion was carried down the street by Detective Sergeant Leane to the 1949 inquest when the bust had only been relatively freshly completed
Here are some of the challenges presented by this history:
-
The bust sat in the open air for years, potentially picking up stray hairs.
-
The provenance (origin) of the key single rootless shaft of hair used in the Carl Webb claim is unclear.
-
We don’t know who handled the body from the outset before it was found on Somerton Beach, or when the bust was made, or when the hair was collected.
We don't know what other hair samples were collected by the people who made the claim.
With only one hair sample, it is very doubtful that a clean result could have been achieved. Bear in mind that for each test applied, separate strands of hair should have been used. That, apparently, was not the case.
Modern forensic science demands a clear chain of custody to be credible.
Without proper documentation, even a valid DNA result may not be accepted as scientific proof.
What Would Science Require Today?
A proper and modern investigation would require at least the following:
-
Clear and detailed log of the origin and handling of the body and all samples.
-
Separate, tested individual hairs using clean lab tools.
-
Process any insect parts separately and test for human DNA.
-
Use validated STR/SNP kits to get reliable DNA profiles.
-
Apply mixture analysis to check if the DNA came from more than one person. This one aspect seems to have been completely overlooked to at least I have not seen any reference to it.
Old vs. New Methods: A Simple Comparison
| Criteria | Original Claim (Carl Webb) | Modern Forensic Science |
|---|---|---|
| Hair Type | Single, rootless | Rooted and rootless accepted |
| DNA Type | Possibly mtDNA only | Nuclear (STR/SNP) DNA preferred |
| Provenance | Not documented | Must be fully documented |
| Contamination Control | Unknown | Strict 'clean-room' procedures |
| Multiple DNA Detection | Not assessed | Now standard |
| Legal Acceptance | Weak | Meets global forensic standards |
Source Documents:
-
Mills, D. K., et al. (2023) – “Eye and Hair Color Prediction from Lucilia sericata”
International Journal of Legal Medicine
DOI: 10.1007/s00414-023-02933-9 -
Green, E. D. et al. (2021–2022) – “Rootless Hair SNP Sequencing in Forensic Genealogy”
ISHI Conference Proceedings
Astrea Forensics Summary -
Pfeifer, C. M., et al. (2020) – “Feasibility of Human DNA Typing from Rootless Hair Shafts”
Forensic Science International: Genetics
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102356 -
van Oorschot, R. A., & Jones, M. K. (2024) – “DNA Profiling from Insect Fragments”
Wiley WIREs Forensic Science
wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com -
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) – “Forensic Technology Advancements”
https://nij.ojp.gov -
Hedman, J., et al. (2023) – “DNA Contamination Control in Historic Hair Samples”
Forensic Sci Med Pathol.
DOI: 10.1007/s12024-023-00500-8
Final Thoughts
Today’s science can recover human DNA from insects and even old rootless hairs. But it demands care, clear documentation, and proper validation. Without these, claims—no matter how confident—don’t stand up to scrutiny.
In the Somerton Man case, the tools now exist. The question is, that the
Based on the current state of forensic DNA science (2025), and incorporating the forensic entomology and hair DNA evidence we’ve just reviewed, the likelihood that the exhumed remains are those of Carl Webb, if based solely on the single rootless hair sample from the bust, is scientifically weak and not verifiable to a high degree of confidence.
Let’s quantify this in a structured way:
Key Facts
-
Single Rootless Hair Sample
-
No documented chain of custody, provenance, or handling notes.
-
No confirmation that it came from the body or was free from contamination.
-
-
Scientific Limitations
-
Nuclear DNA recovery from rootless hair has ~40–85% success depending on method, age, and storage. Let’s conservatively estimate 60% lab-level success.
-
Without provenance, the chance that the hair is misattributed (i.e., not Carl Webb’s) increases substantially. Conservatively: 30–50% probability of contamination or misattribution in uncontrolled settings.
-
For confident identification via STR/SNP: typically requires multiple independent DNA samples or a strong match against verified relatives—not publicly confirmed.
-
-
Forensic Standards
-
The claim fails the chain of custody, validation, and mixture exclusion criteria.
-
It would likely be inadmissible or challenged in court under Daubert or Frye standards.
-
Estimated Likelihood of Carl Webb Being the Somerton Man (with assumptions)
Using the facilities of ChatGPT, a Bayesian framework simplified for this context:
-
Let’s say:
-
60% chance that the DNA profile extracted from rootless hair is technically accurate.
-
50% chance that the hair is actually from the Somerton Man.
-
80% chance that the SNP match to the Webb family is accurate if the DNA was valid and uncontaminated.
-
Total probability = 0.60 × 0.50 × 0.80 = 0.24 or 24%
Final Estimate
Likelihood that the exhumed remains are those of Carl Webb, based solely on the current hair DNA claim and available documentation: approximately 20–25%.
This is not sufficient to support a definitive identification by scientific or legal standards. If additional verified DNA samples from the remains or documented matches to Webb family members were obtained and passed modern forensic thresholds, this percentage could change.
To qualify the contents of this post, I have spent a good deal of time reading various technical source papers on the subject of forensic entomology, but I stress that I do not consider myself an 'expert' in this field. I can say that I have carefully researched and structured this post to be as accurate as I could make it and have included source material links for those who may appreciate them.
Expanding on this post a little, from the information publicly provided on how the Webb idea was d
ReplyDelete‘Discovered’, it is suggested by default that there was only one sample that contained the specific DNA that would lead to to the ID. Again by default, we are told that there couldn’t possibly be any hair samples other than the 50 mm hair shaft used that contained the dna from another source. This despite decades of the bust being exposed to numerous kinds of contamination, it must have been a super clean bust. See next comment.
Yet more in the way of unspoken assumptions that were made. Here we have a plaster bust that since being made, has spent 6 plus decades in all kinds of environments, on office desks, in cupboards, in a courtroom and even taken for a walk down the street and back according to photographs. Here’s a thought. Given this multi environment background of mostly a busy police station but including some of the time in the SA Police museum, uncared. Is it possible that the cleaning staff would on occasion have noticed how dusty and dirty the old bust was? Do you think they would have thought, I’ll give it a once over? A general purpose dusting cloth which would likely have been used to dust all manner of ‘contaminated’ surfaces, and 5 minutes would tidy it up a bit. Is it beyond reason to think that this happened when the bust looked particularly dirty? On such occasions would the cleaners have thought, ‘I’ll damp the cloth and put some bleach on it, bring it back to its original white? I wonder how often over the years that would have happened? When I visited the SA police museum a few years ago, I was struck by how white the bust surface appeared in its plastic display case.
ReplyDeleteAnd the now famous researchers never once mentioned the possibility of contamination as the press cameras flashed and the media brought the news to the insatiable, and gullible public.Still convinced?
Maybe a 1 in 4 chance of that hair being from Carl Webb is being over generous.
ReplyDeleteHad another look at the IEEE mag article, there’s photos of various hair samples, one shows the ‘banding’ that happens after death. https://spectrum.ieee.org/somerton-man
ReplyDeleteJason, that’s true, there is a pic of the banded hair strand but it doesn’t say which hair that was. It doesn’t say it was from the 50mm rootless hair shaft that was sent to Astrea.
ReplyDeleteHere’s the wording from the IEEE Spectrum magazine regarding the 50 mm rootless shaft of hair:
ReplyDelete‘ 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.’
Notice that no mention is made of where, when or how this sample was taken nor does it say who took that particular sample.
My view is that there are numerous ‘unusual’ aspects to the claim. Unusual in the sense that the entire DNA examination process was said to have been carried out by senior, well qualified Academics. That being the case, why are there so many ‘dubious’ aspects to the claim. This is not to say that the people named as having extracted samples are implicated in any kind of wrong doing, far from it, I believe they carried out their tasks professionally.
The bottom line is that there is no provenance to the 50mm rootless shaft of hair that was used to identify Carl Webb. Essentially it’s an ‘orphan’ strand of hair. The bust itself must have been heavily contaminated over the decades as mentioned and now with the new information on entomological analysis being a likely area of investigation by the forensics team working on the case, there are many valid reasons for the lengthy delay in the publication of the Coroner’s findings.
Despite all of this, in my view it is still possible that the body on whom the bust was based, was Carl Webb but it is looking increasingly unlikely.
Has anyone dissolved some of the plaster cast looking for hair from barber floor sweepings that might have been used for reinforcing the cast?
ReplyDeleteHi John, good to hear from you. Excellent question as I would expect. The straight answer is ‘not to my knowledge’. The issue of hair from barber shop/hairdressers premises has been raised but it was apparently never taken to the next step as you describe.
ReplyDeleteRecently as in the last two weeks, I drilled down into the issue of contamination which, as you will know is high on the list of items to be addressed in any forensic examination including when DNA is concerned. I will publish that article today, it does address the barber shop/human hair issue along with other potential sources and how that contamination can occur.
Would an ultrasound show hair in the plaster? That way it's non distructive
ReplyDeleteI would think that ultra sound would pick up objects in plaster. The challenge with the plaster bust is that it is nearly 80 years old and will have deteriorated over that time. Think in terms of insects burrowing deep into the surface and then add to that various cleaning processes from casual wipe over to perhaps cleaning fluids to return the plaster to its original bright white finish. Each of these actions open up the porous surface and ‘stuff’ gets in and embeds itself into the nooks and crannies that have expanded over time. Think in terms of an ants nest. So while you could detect objects they would be likely layered and I would suggest very difficult to isolate a single hair for example. But it’s a good thought and no doubt others will occur to you, please post them when they do.
ReplyDelete