Engineered to Fit A Known Solution 2

Are We Asking The Right Questions?

It seems every so often in the history of cold cases, none more famous than Australia's own Somerton Man, we are treated to another stunning headline: 'A decades-old, impossible cold case has finally been solved! ' or so we are told. Powered by the revolution in genetic genealogy and vast digital archives, investigators are now achieving breakthroughs that were once the stuff of science fiction. These are moments of collective celebration, where a name is given to the nameless and a measure of closure is found, or so it seems .

But what if the very tools that make these breakthroughs, are also responsible for a new, subtle and somewhat dubious use of the technology? As we celebrate these solutions, it is also the perfect time for a thoughtful discussion about method, scientific integrity, and the nature of proof, and, truth itself.

So, let's engage in a thought experiment. If we were to hypothetically construct a plausible solution to a historical case, rather than discover a genuine one, how might that be done?

Modern technology makes the initial steps surprisingly accessible. With online databases and basic programming, one could easily mine historical records to find a list of "ideal candidates". For example, a man like Carl 'Charles' Webb, a real person of the right approximate age who simply vanished from public view at the right time. From there, building/creating an extensive family tree to lend an air of authority to the research is a matter of perhaps a week or two, not decades.

The most critical question, however, involves the sequence of the investigation itself. The standard forensic process is clear: unknown DNA from a crime scene is used to trace, identify, and find a name.

But what if that process were reversed?

What if, hypothetically, a plausible name was selected from a researched list first, and the DNA evidence was then guided to fit that predetermined conclusion? It’s a fascinating puzzle, exploring how procedural sequencing and technical jargon could be used to frame a narrative that is compelling, convincing, but ultimately non-verified.

This 'thought' experiment is not about casting doubt on specific cases, but about encouraging a healthy, informed skepticism, the very cornerstone of scientific inquiry. The next time a major breakthrough is announced, it's an opportunity for us all to engage with the story on a deeper level.

Consider asking a few key questions:

1. Was the genealogical research that identified the candidate conducted before or after a DNA link was established?

2. Is there a clear, unbroken chain of custody documented for the specific sample/s that yielded the 'breakthrough' result, for instance, a single hair claimed to be from a now 76-year-old plaster bust?

3. Was the finding confirmed by an independent lab before it was announced to the media, if at all?

Exploring these questions is crucial for appreciating both the incredible power and the potential pitfalls of modern forensics. The intricate and ultimate dance between truth, technology, and the psychology of a mystery solved is the central theme of the upcoming, still in progress book which dives much deeper into the fascinating world where science can be both a tool for truth and a cloak for deviousness and deception.

Nothing is ever as it seems...