SOMERTON MAN: A Verdict, Not Proven (According to Claude AI)

 

DNA Evidence Analysis: The Somerton Man Case

As part of the ongoing search for the somewhat elusive truth in the Somerton Man, case the recent focus has been clearly on the matter of the Carl Webb  Claim. Accordingly all of the evidence and information in the public space was gathered and reviewed. Then I put together an engineered 'prompt' that asked a series of questions designed to drill down to the heart of the matter and this was then submitted to Claude AI . The results have been incorporated into this post as you will read.

A Critical Examination of the Identification Claims

The Somerton Man case has captivated researchers for over seven decades, and recent claims about DNA identification have generated significant interest. As we examine these claims, it's important to apply rigorous scientific standards to evaluate the evidence presented.

Understanding Mitochondrial DNA Inheritance

To properly assess the current identification claims, we must first understand how mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) inheritance works:

1. mtDNA is present in females and passed to all their children
2. However, only females can pass mtDNA to the next generation
3. This creates traceable maternal lineages that can span centuries
4. Males carry their mother's mtDNA but cannot transmit it to their offspring

The Current Claims and Evidence

In 2018, analysis of a hair sample reportedly taken from the Somerton Man's plaster bust by the University of Adelaide team revealed mtDNA haplogroup H4a1a1a. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerton_Man)

Subsequently, claims have been made identifying the Somerton Man as Charles Webb, based on family tree research published in IEEE Spectrum magazine. (https://spectrum.ieee.org/somerton-man)

According to this proposed family tree, Charles Webb's mother was Elize Webb, who also had children named Russell, Freda, and Doris. Crucially, only Doris Webb shows an unbroken female lineage to a living relative.

The Logical Chain of Evidence

If the proposed identification is correct, the following should be true:

For Charles Webb: He would have inherited the same H4a1a1a mtDNA haplogroup from his mother, Elize Webb, since mtDNA passes from mother to all children regardless of gender.

For xxxxx: She should also carry the H4a1a1a haplogroup, having inherited it through an unbroken maternal line from Elize Webb through Doris Webb.

The Definitive Test

This creates a straightforward, testable hypothesis. A simple mtDNA analysis of XXXXX XXXXXXX's sample would either:

• Support the identification if her mtDNA shows haplogroup H4a1a1a
• Refute the identification if her mtDNA shows a different haplogroup

Critical Gaps in the Evidence Chain

While the logic of the Carl Webb claim appears sound, several fundamental questions remain unanswered:

1. Missing Comparative Data

The mtDNA results from the hair sample analyzed by Astrea Forensics (reportedly from the plaster bust) have never been made public. Without this data, we cannot verify whether the 2018 sample and the Astrea sample actually match.

2. Sample Provenance and Age

What documentation exists to verify the actual age of the rootless shaft of hair sample used in the 2022 claim? Without proper chain of custody records, we cannot confirm these samples are from the 1948 era rather than modern contamination.

3. Gender Verification

What proof exists regarding the sex of the donors of both hair samples? If the samples came from different individuals, or if gender wasn't properly determined, the comparison becomes meaningless.

The Burden of Proof

In forensic science, identification claims require rigorous documentation and verification. The current situation presents several concerning elements:

• Lack of transparency in releasing comparative DNA data
• Absence of documented provenance for the hair samples
• Missing chain of custody documentation

Scientific Conclusion

The Helen Dangerfield test would provide crucial evidence to evaluate the Webb family hypothesis, but would need to be considered alongside proper documentation of sample provenance and chain of custody to reach any definitive conclusions.

Until such time as that documentation, provenance and chain of custody are made available, the claim remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Moving Forward

The Somerton Man case deserves resolution based on solid scientific evidence rather than speculation. The proposed identification could be correct, but it requires proper verification through:

1. Release of all DNA analysis data for peer review
2. Documentation of sample provenance and chain of custody
3. Independent verification through the XXXXX XXXXXXX comparison
4. Transparent methodology that can be scrutinized by the scientific community

Until these standards are met, the mystery of the Somerton Man's identity remains unsolved and the Carl Webb claim can only be viewed as a Hypothesis. Having said that a resolution can be commenced by virtue of an analysis of DNA from Helen Dangerfield and that of course is a choice for her to make and in this regard we will always defer to that and treat her privacy with the greatest of respect.

---

This analysis represents logical reasoning based on presented information and established principles of forensic science. As with all scientific hypotheses, claims should be supported by verifiable evidence and subjected to peer review.