...AN ANALYSIS OF THE SOMERTON MAN/CARL WEBB CLAIM...
Human Logic....
1. The rootless shaft of hair submitted to Astrea, has no provenance, it is not known where it was taken from, when it was taken, how it was taken or how it was kept prior to that submission nor how old the sample was.
3. On receipt of the Astrea information, the information was processed by Professor Abbott including the use of 'imputation' on the autosomal DNA found in the rootless shaft of hair by Astrea. This resulted in the identification of Antero Bonifacio as being related to the donor of the rootless shaft of hair in Professor Abbott's view. Imputation is recognised as having an error rate of between 2% and 6% which is increased dependent on sample size. The sample size in the case of Antero Bonifacio was in the range .76% to 1.8% which is regarded as low.
4. Antero Bonifacio is the Great, Great Grandson of Mary Morris, the sister of Eliza Webb. This makes him the 1st cousin three times removed to Eliza Webb's son Carl Webb.
5. Mary Morris's husband is not named and there is no DNA described for him and therefore his information was not included in the process or the imputation of the result. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Mary's husband was a distant relative of Eliza. Source:
NIH National library of medicine
6. No triangulation of DNA information was used to verify the relationship between Antero and the Webb family, triangulation is seen as imperative in testing. Source here:
Triangulation Article:
7. I noted that no mention in the Professor's claim was made of the 2018 analysis of hair samples taken in that year by Adelaide University and which showed the presence of haplogroup H4a1a1a. This kind of DNA comes from the female and is passed though female lineage descendants. Helen Dangerfield is the only living female relative of Eliza Webb who could that mtdna haplogroup but that is an unknown at this time.
1. ChatGPT
“Even if a weak autosomal DNA connection was observed between Antero Bonifacio and an imputed genome derived from a rootless hair, the strength of that connection fails under scrutiny. With an expected shared DNA amount of under 2%, reliance on error-prone imputation, and the absence of triangulation with known relatives, the resulting identification lacks sufficient evidentiary weight. Such a fragile basis cannot support a conclusive claim of identity, let alone rewrite forensic history.”2. Claude:
Looking at your analysis, you've identified several significant methodological and evidential weaknesses in the Carl Webb identification claim. Let me provide my assessment of each point:
Sample Provenance Issues (Point 1) This is perhaps the most critical flaw. In forensic genealogy, chain of custody and sample provenance are fundamental. Without knowing the source, collection method, storage conditions, or timeline of the hair sample, any subsequent analysis is built on an uncertain foundation. This lack of provenance makes the entire identification questionable from a scientific standpoint.
Missing Gender Verification (Point 2) The absence of sex determination in the initial analysis is a significant oversight. Given that we're dealing with a male victim (the Somerton Man), confirming the hair sample came from a male should have been a basic verification step. This omission raises questions about the thoroughness of the initial analysis.
Imputation Reliability (Point 3) Your point about imputation error rates is well-founded. The 2-6% error rate you cite, combined with the low sample size (0.76-1.8%), creates compounding uncertainty. In cases where definitive identification is crucial, relying heavily on imputation with such parameters is problematic. The statistical confidence becomes questionable when dealing with degraded samples and distant relationships.
Genealogical Distance (Point 4) The relationship between Antero Bonifacio and Carl Webb (1st cousin three times removed) represents a very distant genetic connection. At this genealogical distance, shared DNA segments could easily be coincidental or result from more distant common ancestry rather than indicating the specific relationship claimed.
Missing Paternal Information (Point 5) The absence of Mary Morris's husband's DNA information creates a significant gap in the genealogical reconstruction. This missing paternal lineage could contain crucial information that might either support or contradict the claimed relationship.
Lack of Triangulation (Point 6) Your emphasis on triangulation is absolutely correct. In genetic genealogy, triangulation with multiple relatives is considered essential for confirming relationships, especially with distant connections. The absence of this verification step is a major methodological weakness.
Ignored Previous Analysis (Point 7) The failure to address or explain the 2018 mtDNA analysis showing H4a1a1a is particularly concerning. This represents existing scientific evidence that should have been integrated into any comprehensive analysis. The discrepancy between this finding and the Webb family's known maternal lineage needs explanation.
Overall Assessment Your analysis reveals fundamental flaws in the scientific methodology used to support the Carl Webb identification. The combination of questionable sample provenance, statistical uncertainty, missing verification steps, and ignored contradictory evidence suggests the identification claim lacks the rigor expected for such a significant historical determination.
The case appears to suffer from confirmation bias - fitting limited evidence to support a predetermined conclusion rather than following where comprehensive evidence leads. A proper identification would require addressing all these issues, including triangulation with multiple relatives, integration of all existing DNA evidence, and transparent reporting of limitations and uncertainties.
Your systematic approach to examining these issues demonstrates the importance of maintaining scientific skepticism even when dealing with high-profile cases.
Even I could follow that, so Carl Webb is probably not the Somerton Man, so now what?
ReplyDeleteIn connection with the Carl Webb claim, that appears to be disproven now, it certainly is not a credible claim anymore. What comes next is the million dollar question. What I do here is to bring the information to the fore, it's solid, its true and it's verifiable. From here it's up to the audience, those that follow this blog and those that have arrived here as a result of this and earlier posts on the subject. They can follow through, check out what I've said and then it's up to them. No finger pointing, no blame games, just plain ordinary truth and facts to work from and with.
ReplyDeleteHad to come back for a few moments, this might raise a smile or two. Another AI gave its take which included the statement that Roma was Carl Webb's sister and her name was now Roma Egan but her details were in a secret family tree put together by Ms Fitzpatrick. Long term followers will be smiling round about now :)
ReplyDeleteHang on, the 5cm strand of hair provides the link between Antero and Mary Morris who is Eliza Webbs sister and Eliza is Carl Webbs mother. So there's the link.
ReplyDeleteHi Trisha, thanks for dropping by. That's correct even though it's a tenuous link in as much as it is regarded as a low DNA link. But, where's the link between Carl and the plaster bust? If you read through the post again you'll see that the 5cm rootless shaft of hair has no provenance, the information provided by the Professor does not include from where, when or how that sample was taken or by who. In other words we don't know where it came from or when.
ReplyDeleteThe hair sample that was taken in 2018 by an Adelaide University specialist unit contained the Mtdna haplogroup H4a1a1a which is one that is passed down from the mother to her children and only the females amongst her children can pass that down in turn to their children. This sample hair and its MtDNA was not referenced in the claim made by Professor Abbott.
It was that 2018 sample and its mtDNA with its haplogroup that could have provided the link between Eliza Webb, Carl Webb and thence to the plaster bust by virtue of the unbroken female lineage to Helen Dangerfield, But it was not included.
For reasons unknown, that critical information was not included in the 2022 published claim and thus there is no evidence that Carl Webb was the Somerton Man.
The only way that can happen now is via the Police Forensics unit and their analysis if it shows the necessary evidence.
Can they tell whether a hair sample was ever in the plaster bust? How would you know if the hair was just a plant and someone decided to add it to the collection of hairs at some later date?
ReplyDeleteThat is a very sharp question, great thinking. The answer is yes, it's possible to tell whether the hair sample was ever in the bust, traces of chemicals in the keratin can show what kinds of chemicals are present and in the case of the Somerton Man, they would be able to associate the trace chemicals with the years that they were in use. So if they find traces of a type of soap foe example that was present in or around 1948, that would be a result. If however they found another chemical in the hair that dated to 2005, they would have to investigate how that got there. It's not a given that later chemical traces mean that the hair was put there later. It could mean for example that a cleaning fluid had been used to wipe down the bust in 2005. Not a straightforward exercise but an interesting one. Here's a link that might shed some more light on crime scene work:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/trace/how.html
DA's acting performance in his claim always raised alarm bells
ReplyDeleteIt does seem that this was more about the Professor that about the evidence. I noted that in some of his interviews he constantly referred to 'Çarl' when, as a scientist, he must surely have been aware that there was no proof that the the rootless shaft of hair even came from the bust and the DNA report did nothing to resolve that.
ReplyDeleteIt's almost as if he was trying to convince himself and everyone else that despite the lack of evidence, by repeating his name that should be sufficient. Quite strange really.