by Dr. Dadna Hartman and Dr. Runa Daniel, VIFM, and Dr. Colleen Fitzpatrick, Identifinders International
In May 2004, a man died of natural causes in Carlton, Melbourne. He had no identification, and early attempts to establish his name failed. Witnesses described him as someone who, although he lived rough, kept to a routine, maintained a tidy space and rarely spoke. A newspaper appeal brought no answer as to who this individual might be. For years, he was known by his coronial case number, or simply as the Carlton Man. But the case was not forgotten.
When conventional DNA reaches a dead end
Conventional forensic DNA profiling is highly effective when a profile from an unknown deceased can be compared with that of a close relative or an existing database entry. However, when neither is available, an investigation can stall. The Carlton Man’s blood sample had already undergone conventional DNA profiling and mitochondrial DNA analysis, with later research also producing information about his likely biogeographical ancestry and his eye and hair color. However, none of these approaches identified him.
Forensic investigative genetic genealogy, or FIGG, offered another path. In 2019, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) began a collaborative evaluation of FIGG for unidentified human remains in its care. DNA from selected cases was analyzed using a microarray, producing the dense data needed for genealogy matching. Carlton Man was one of them.
A promising match—and a long search
In late 2019, the Carlton Man’s FIGG profile was uploaded to the GEDmatch database and returned a promising match of about 200 cM to the Carlton Man, where a cM (centimorgan) is a unit used to describe how much DNA two people share. Shared cMs can indicate a likely degree of relationship, but they do not identify a person on their own. In this case, the shared cMs indicated that the match was in the range of a second cousin, but this was not enough to identify him.
In mid-2020, a search of the FamilyTreeDNA database produced a much stronger match of about 616 cM. This was consistent with several possible relationships, including a first cousin once removed or a half first cousin. From the information gleaned from FamilyTreeDNA, it became clear that Carlton Man was of Jewish ancestry.
Our genealogy team—Dr Dadna Hartman and Dr Runa Daniel (VIFM), and Dr Colleen Fitzpatrick of Identifinders International—began networking the Carlton Man’s matches by building family trees from civil registrations, immigration records, electoral rolls, newspaper notices, archival tracing documents and information shared by relatives. The work required caution, as endogamy—marriage within a community over generations—can cause relatives to share more DNA than expected and make a relationship appear closer. This is especially true for individuals of Jewish ancestry. Fortunately, in this case, the use of targeted testing excluded the paternal side of the closest match’s family, allowing the search to focus on the maternal line, where it began in earnest.
The paper trail the team followed crossed Poland, Israel, the United States, Greece, Italy, Germany and Australia. The search was made difficult by incomplete records, names that had changed after migration, and the loss of many family documents during the Holocaust. Genetic genealogy is not a matter of simply following the family of the closest DNA match; every proposed connection must be tested against independent evidence.
The search was intensely collaborative and deeply human. The team worked long hours across different time zones, sharing leads as records surfaced and following family lines through countries, languages and generations. Delving into this history meant piecing together fragmented documents and confronting the effects of the Holocaust and diaspora on individual families. The technology opened the door, but sustained teamwork, historical research and persistence moved the investigation forward, ultimately leading to an investigative lead.
A name emerges from the records
The family tree eventually pointed to Chemia Kwiat, who was born in Warsaw in 1918 and emigrated to Melbourne after World War II, where historical records placed him in Carlton North. The other siblings in the relevant family branch were accounted for, with Chemia being the only close relative identified by the research whose later life and death remained unresolved. We now know that Chemia had become estranged from his relatives, which explains why no one responded to the initial efforts to identify him.
A FIGG report was completed in October 2021 and concluded that the evidence supported Chemia Kwiat as the identity of the Carlton Man, recommending that formal checks of life and further verification be conducted. At this point, the FIGG finding was an investigative lead—not, by itself, a final legal identification. In September 2026, following the conclusion of the coronial process, Carlton Man was formally identified as Chemia Kwiat.
While powerful, FIGG as a method has some limitations. Population structure, overlapping family relationships and gaps in historical records can all distort an apparent connection. A family tree is a hypothesis to be tested, not a conclusion to be accepted uncritically.
Why this powerful method needs safeguards
FIGG can reopen cases that conventional methods cannot resolve, but its reach is inherently familial—one person’s decision to use a genealogy database may reveal information about relatives who never submitted a sample. For this reason, investigators need clear legal and ethical frameworks. They must respect database terms of service and user consent, minimise the collection and retention of personal information, recognise document uncertainty, and confirm genealogical leads with independent evidence. FIGG should complement, and not replace, established identification methods.
Cases like that of the Carlton Man are often discussed in terms of DNA samples, profiles and case numbers. Yet every file represents a person, a family and a community. One witness expressed surprise and gratitude that efforts to identify the Carlton Man had continued after so many years.
The lesson here is not that technology produces instant answers. This investigation took more than a decade of laboratory work, historical research and collaboration. It highlights the importance of multinational collaboration in cross-border identifications. Used carefully, FIGG can restore possibilities once thought closed and help ensure that the search for a person’s name continues as technology advances.