The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Page 10 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by joyce1938 on 14.06.16 12:40

Have no proof where the blood spot came from ,but it was normal to take blood test and place on a cardboard  from all new borns in hospital. It was used to detect some condition ,dont recall what .   I think it was beachy used to be on sites and was very good with the DNA thing.   The pillow case  was said to be the same as blood spot. Think it was taken as read ,ofcourse some didn't want to believe it,we might know one day .joyce1938
avatar
joyce1938

Posts : 837
Reputation : 108
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by sallypelt on 24.03.17 18:54

Saw this on Twitter feed:

sallypelt

Posts : 3591
Reputation : 771
Join date : 2012-11-10

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by JohnyT on 24.03.17 23:17

Sorry can't read it

JohnyT

Posts : 191
Reputation : 89
Join date : 2014-06-01

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by sallypelt on 24.03.17 23:21

@JohnyT wrote:Sorry can't read it
I can't make it any bigger because it won't let me post it if it is bigger. You will have to put it on magnification

sallypelt

Posts : 3591
Reputation : 771
Join date : 2012-11-10

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 24.03.17 23:24

It's actually posted on this forum somewhere in Latest News, I had a look for it earlier cos I can't read it either!
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9298
Reputation : 4671
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 25.03.17 10:53

Here's the article from the pdf:


Explanation of the DNA Analysis as detailed in the forensic report by John Lowe


Background

We all have 2 copies of every gene/stretch of DNA – 1 inherited maternally, the other paternally.

At some genetic sites, there are short, repetitive motifs called markers. Each marker will contain a variable number of repeated motifs. In diagrammatic form, a marker pair at any one site, could be represented like this, where the letters, ACGT, are the 4 bases which make up DNA (AAGTC is an arbitrary motif);

Maternally inherited marker AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC| 8
Paternally inherited marker AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC| 4

So, at this marker site, the repeat pair values would be read as 8,4
This would be shown as 2 peaks on a readout, at that site with relative heights on a compter-generated graph as 8 and 4.

A second site could be represented as follows (where CCGTCTA is an arbitrary motif);

Maternally inherited marker CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| 9

Paternally inherited marker CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| 5

So, at this second site, the computer readout would be 9,5

As you can see, the exact sequence of the DNA is irrelevant. It is just the number of motif repeats that is of significance. Therefore, any reference to a small chance of errors occurring during amplification of the DNA ie bulking up Low Copy Number (LCN) by copying a small amount of starting material, is irrelevant. The actual DNA code (ACGT) is of no interest, as long as the repeats of varying lengths, are present. Even if say a C is erroneously copied as an A, G or T (which is how errors can occur with individual letters) it does not affect the validity of this technique. It is akin to spelling the word “THERE” of 5 letters long and erroneously transcribing it as “THEIR”. The second spelling has a different meaning but all we are looking at here, is, how long is the word and how many times is it repeated? We don’t care about the meaning for this kind of analysis.





Creating profiles using the technique


Because the number of repeats each of us has at each of these sites is random, we can produce a unique profile, in terms of pairs of repeat values, over several sites.

If we were to look at 10 sites, with 2 values at each site, we will have 20 values, in pairs and that is an important thing to bear in mind. The power of the technique in terms of producing UNIQUE profiles is that we are not looking at 20 random sites giving 20 random values, but 10 pairs of values at 10 sites.
As touched on earlier, the computers that produce the data, do so by giving “peak heights” according to the length of the repeat. So a repeat length of 2, has a peak height of 2 units, a repeat value of 3, a peak height of 3 units etc., etc. These are the peaks referred to by Lowe.

The table below shows the way a unique profile of a child would be inherited from a given set of parental markers. The full set of 20 markers, in terms of 10 pairs of 2 values can be called the inherited genotype or genetic profile.
In the table below, the values I’ve listed at line “possible inherited marker sets at each site (child)”, are derived by combining each maternal value and with each paternal value in turn, resulting in 4 possible combinations. I have used arbitrary numbers for illustrative purposes.

NB at marker site no.8, I’ve shown how, if both parents possess the same number of repeats at a given site, there will be a 1 in 4 chance that a child could inherit the same number twice. A child inheriting the same number of repeats from both parents, in this case 9, will produce a profile that appears with only one peak at that site and in this example, it will have a height of 9 units. Cf the Lowe report where he explains that the DNA from the Rothley pillowcase (Madeleine’s control sample) yielded an apparent complete profile of 19 markers, not 20, because at one site, there was an inheritance of the same number of repeats from both Kate and Gerry. In fact, there would have been 2 peaks, superimposed on each other so appear as 1. Therefore, when Lowe says there were 19 markers this should strictly be described as 20 but 19 in terms of peaks.

               
Marker Site12345678910
Maternal repeat lengths
(Maternal genotype)
8,45,96,83,75,68,44,79,43,85,4
Paternal repeat lengths
(paternal genotype)
7,94,39,36,48,95,53,89,3
7,63,7
Possible inherited
marker sets at each site
(child)

8,7
8,9
4,7
4,9

5,4
5,3
9,4
9,3

6,9
6,3
8,9
8,3

3,6
3,4
7,6
7,4

5,8
5,9
6,8
6,9

8,5
8,5
4,5
4,5

4,3
4,8
7,3
7,8

9,9
9,3
4,9
4,3

3,7
3,6
8,7
6,8

5,3
5,7
4,3
4,7


Looking at the above, to produce a unique genetic profile for an offspring during reproduction, we randomly take 1 set of marker values (of the 4 we have to choose from) at each site. I’ve randomly taken one marker set at each site to produce an example of a profile shown below. It can then be seen that if we were to analyse these marker sets, we would get 2 peaks at each site on a readout, except site no. 8 in my example below, because of the inheritance pattern explained earlier. The probability of inheriting any one marker pair from a possibility of 4 options shown in the table above, is 1 in 4 or 0.25

         
Randomly inherited profile4,79,36,93,46,84,54,89,98,65,7
Probability of inheriting that particular marker pair0.25
0.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.25

What is the probability that the crime scene DNA described as having a 15/19 marker match did or did not come from Madeleine?


The probability of inheritance of any single full genotype at all 10 sites, from one set of parents = 0.25 multiplied by 0.25, 10 times, so (0.25)10 = 0.00000095 which is just over 1 million to 1.

Therefore, there are just over 1 million permutations of inheritance of 10 pairs of markers from any 2 parents. It’s a very powerful technique because we look at marker PAIR values. Lowe says that we all share these repeats and if you were to look at any one person’s DNA, you would find a selection of these numbers. That is true, but the chances of any value represented along with its paired value at any single site is not at all likely. As you can see, even inheriting the same pair values at one site among siblings is a 1 in 4 chance. Looking at the population as a whole, variation in repeat values at each site is much larger.

According to Lowe, the profile of the crime scene DNA yielded 15 markers that were identical to that of Madeleine’s pillowcase DNA. He says 15/19 because 4 markers were missing due to the DNA being degraded. Because the analysis is done as pair values at each site and you can’t have half a site nor half a pair value, it should be 16/20. The pillowcase DNA did have 20 markers which looked like only 19 as described above. If you look along the profile in the table above, reading from site 1 to 8, you will see that in fact, by column 8, you have 16 markers even though 2 are identical.

In this case, the probability of inheriting those same 8 pairs of markers at those sites from the same parents is (0.25)8= 0.000015 or 66.66 thousand to 1 chance.

What is the probability that a random stranger, not related to Madeleine, deposited DNA with those exact same 16 marker pairs over the 8 sites with a complete match to Madeleine? Many million to 1.
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9298
Reputation : 4671
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by HKP on 25.03.17 11:18

@GeG
That's not the same a Sallypelt's pasted tweet which is​ much easier to understand and even more damming​
avatar
HKP

Posts : 126
Reputation : 100
Join date : 2015-07-08

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 25.03.17 11:21

Yes, I've messaged Janine to find the whole post...bear with me.
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9298
Reputation : 4671
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 25.03.17 11:27

Here we go:

Courtesy of Janine Bresnick - I am a geneticist and spoke about this on another site. The markers are highly variable stretches of DNA which differ person to person (evolutionary mutations), so getting the sequences of multiple regions or markers allow a unique profile or genetic fingerprint to be obtained for someone. The forensic science service looked at 19 regions of DNA (or 19 markers) and 15 belonged to Madeleine not anyone else. They found this out by comparing the same DNA regions taken from samples from her pillowcase (control sample) with the DNA extracted from blood samples retrieved from under the apartment floor tiles. The result, 15/19 markers which belong to Madeleine, can make it seem that 4/19 did not, but this is not the case. In fact, the report says the DNA markers at those 4 regions were not of sufficient quality to analyse because that DNA was degraded, Therefore the markers apparently "missing", are not, nor do they belong to anyone else, nor is it contamination etc, it just couldn't be analysed. In fact it would be very unlikely they would not belong to Madeleine if they were accessible to analysis. With these facts on the table AND the fact that the samples containing this DNA were isolated from places indicated by 2 forensic dogs who have never before been wrong (it's an exact science, not like "sometimes they're wrong and sometimes they're right" they were proven right because they indicated exactly where the bodily fluids were), because Eddie the cadaver dog indicated the same places where a dead body had been placed, it is, unfortunately, inconceivable that Madeleine is still alive. There is no evidence AT ALL that substantiates an abduction, if there is, could someone please post it.
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9298
Reputation : 4671
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by pennylane on 25.03.17 11:36

@Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Courtesy of Janine Bresnick - I am a geneticist and spoke about this on another site. The markers are highly variable stretches of DNA which differ person to person (evolutionary mutations), so getting the sequences of multiple regions or markers allow a unique profile or genetic fingerprint to be obtained for someone. The forensic science service looked at 19 regions of DNA (or 19 markers) and 15 belonged to Madeleine not anyone else. They found this out by comparing the same DNA regions taken from samples from her pillowcase (control sample) with the DNA extracted from blood samples retrieved from under the apartment floor tiles. The result, 15/19 markers which belong to Madeleine, can make it seem that 4/19 did not, but this is not the case. In fact, the report says the DNA markers at those 4 regions were not of sufficient quality to analyse because that DNA was degraded, Therefore the markers apparently "missing", are not, nor do they belong to anyone else, nor is it contamination etc, it just couldn't be analysed. In fact it would be very unlikely they would not belong to Madeleine if they were accessible to analysis. With these facts on the table AND the fact that the samples containing this DNA were isolated from places indicated by 2 forensic dogs who have never before been wrong (it's an exact science, not like "sometimes they're wrong and sometimes they're right" they were proven right because they indicated exactly where the bodily fluids were), because Eddie the cadaver dog indicated the same places where a dead body had been placed, it is, unfortunately, inconceivable that Madeleine is still alive. There is no evidence AT ALL that substantiates an abduction, if there is, could someone please post it.

The Drs McCann will find this geneticist and his scientific analysis very hurtful and unhelpful!

pennylane

Posts : 2756
Reputation : 1584
Join date : 2009-12-07

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by Verdi on 25.03.17 12:26

You know what they say - 'a miss is as good as a mile'.

My question is and always has been, why out of all the forensic samples submitted to the UK Forensic Science Service, did not one single sample produce a meaningful result after analysis?

Technically it can be said that 'forensic' [sic] dogs are an exact science but in reality it's not strictly true - they do sometimes give false alerts, get it wrong so to speak.  Not their fault - they only follow their nose.

Whatever way you look at it, the FSS results were inconclusive.  I really can't see anything miraculous occurring to change that unless cuddlecat has a secret to tell!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 5392
Reputation : 3196
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by ChippyM on 25.03.17 12:43

I thought the main reason the DNA analysis was inconclusive was that Madeleine shares DNA with her family and we know the family were in that car.
  So instead of it being virtually impossible that a strangers dna would make up a match, we have the possibility that people she shares 25% and 50% of her dna with made that sample instead of her.

    The question is how likely is that to occur? John Lowe's analysis seems evasive and misleading (why mention a lab person's DNA?) and why not test the 'madeliene sample' against the family members to say whether any of them were NOT in that sample?

ChippyM

Posts : 1261
Reputation : 409
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by Verdi on 25.03.17 12:56

@ChippyM wrote:I thought the main reason the DNA analysis was inconclusive was that Madeleine shares DNA with her family and we know the family were in that car.
  So instead of it being virtually impossible that a strangers dna would make up a match, we have the possibility that people she shares 25% and 50% of her dna with made that sample instead of her.

    The question is how likely is that to occur? John Lowe's analysis seems evasive and misleading (why mention a lab person's DNA?) and why not test the 'madeliene sample' against the family members to say whether any of them were NOT in that sample?
I think is generally known as baffling you with science big grin .

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 5392
Reputation : 3196
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by sandancer on 25.03.17 13:13

@Verdi wrote:
@ChippyM wrote:I thought the main reason the DNA analysis was inconclusive was that Madeleine shares DNA with her family and we know the family were in that car.
  So instead of it being virtually impossible that a strangers dna would make up a match, we have the possibility that people she shares 25% and 50% of her dna with made that sample instead of her.

    The question is how likely is that to occur? John Lowe's analysis seems evasive and misleading (why mention a lab person's DNA?) and why not test the 'madeliene sample' against the family members to say whether any of them were NOT in that sample?
I think is generally known as baffling you with science big grin .


It's worked , I'm baffled as to why such​ an " evasive and misleading " report​ was​ allowed to go through ?

Anyone know what happened to John​ Lowe ?

____________________
Be humble for you​ are made​ of earth . Be noble for you​ are made of stars .
avatar
sandancer

Posts : 438
Reputation : 699
Join date : 2016-02-18
Age : 64
Location : Tyneside

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by Verdi on 25.03.17 13:18

@sandancer wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
@ChippyM wrote:I thought the main reason the DNA analysis was inconclusive was that Madeleine shares DNA with her family and we know the family were in that car.
  So instead of it being virtually impossible that a strangers dna would make up a match, we have the possibility that people she shares 25% and 50% of her dna with made that sample instead of her.

    The question is how likely is that to occur? John Lowe's analysis seems evasive and misleading (why mention a lab person's DNA?) and why not test the 'madeliene sample' against the family members to say whether any of them were NOT in that sample?
I think is generally known as baffling you with science big grin .


It's worked , I'm baffled as to why such​ an " evasive and misleading " report​ was​ allowed to go through ?

Anyone know what happened to John​ Lowe ?
He's laying low - lay low lay low, how lowe can you go ?!?

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 5392
Reputation : 3196
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by NickE on 25.03.17 17:27

@sandancer wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
@ChippyM wrote:I thought the main reason the DNA analysis was inconclusive was that Madeleine shares DNA with her family and we know the family were in that car.
  So instead of it being virtually impossible that a strangers dna would make up a match, we have the possibility that people she shares 25% and 50% of her dna with made that sample instead of her.

    The question is how likely is that to occur? John Lowe's analysis seems evasive and misleading (why mention a lab person's DNA?) and why not test the 'madeliene sample' against the family members to say whether any of them were NOT in that sample?
I think is generally known as baffling you with science big grin .


It's worked , I'm baffled as to why such​ an " evasive and misleading " report​ was​ allowed to go through ?

Anyone know what happened to John​ Lowe ?

He is working in Manchester at "Key forensics services"

____________________
When asked if people will ever learn what really happened, Mr Amaral responded: “Yes, we will, when MI5 opens the case files, we will find out".
avatar
NickE

Posts : 994
Reputation : 300
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 42

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by sandancer on 25.03.17 17:55

Thanks Nick​E .

"Highly skilled​ " ! Hmm !

____________________
Be humble for you​ are made​ of earth . Be noble for you​ are made of stars .
avatar
sandancer

Posts : 438
Reputation : 699
Join date : 2016-02-18
Age : 64
Location : Tyneside

Back to top Go down

John Lowe,match of DNA

Post by willowthewisp on 26.03.17 16:55

@sandancer wrote:Thanks Nick​E .

"Highly skilled​ " ! Hmm !
Sandancer,Not only "highly Skilled"but offered a proposed "interpretation of Madeleine's DNA",15;19 Markers with Four un-obtainable markers,FSS report!?

willowthewisp

Posts : 1682
Reputation : 666
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by ChippyM on 27.03.17 12:01

@Verdi wrote:
@ChippyM wrote:I thought the main reason the DNA analysis was inconclusive was that Madeleine shares DNA with her family and we know the family were in that car.
  So instead of it being virtually impossible that a strangers dna would make up a match, we have the possibility that people she shares 25% and 50% of her dna with made that sample instead of her.

    The question is how likely is that to occur? John Lowe's analysis seems evasive and misleading (why mention a lab person's DNA?) and why not test the 'madeliene sample' against the family members to say whether any of them were NOT in that sample?
I think is generally known as baffling you with science big grin .

Maybe but it's still a problem with the DNA found in the car. Siblings share DNA markers as do parents and we know they were present in the car. In a mixed sample it is impossible to say which bits came from who. As I understand it, that's why many experts would not give a probability of it being the victims like they would in a case where family members weren't at the scene.
  It would be good to see more explanation of the probability of it being made up from family members, the analysis that Get em posted earlier with an estimate of 66 thousand to one....was only taking in to account the parents.  So I don't see how that can be accurate.

ChippyM

Posts : 1261
Reputation : 409
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

Post by HKP on 27.03.17 19:18

John has been practicing forensic​ science​ for more than 14 years, so in 2007 it was 'more than 4 years' (but less than 5). Hardly the experience of an 'expert' like​ he was made out
avatar
HKP

Posts : 126
Reputation : 100
Join date : 2015-07-08

Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
McCanns apt & hire car


Blood and cadaver alerts
dismissed by UK Government


Retired DCI Gonçalo Amaral: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened - they don't need to investigate anything. All this is now a mere 'show off'."

Retired murder DCI Colin Sutton: "I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail."

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley made public on national TV that Operation Grange is a complete fraud.

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window of opportunity', in accordance with their remit, to allow the fake abduction to happen.

Despite "irrelevant behaviour" from blood and cadaver dogs in the McCann's apartment, on Kate McCann's clothes, and in the car they hired three weeks after Maddie disappeared, Ex-Chief Inspector, Ian Horrocks, said: "The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter is frankly preposterous."

Gerry McCann called for example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY News reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room. Brenda paid the price. She paid with her life.

Ex-Deputy Chief Constable, Jim Gamble QPM, congratulated SKY reporter, Martin Brunt, on twitter for doorstepping Brenda Leyland on behalf of Gerry McCann.

Prime Minister Theresa May introduces Prime Suspect Kate McCann to Royalty: The Duchess of Gloucester.

Good Cop Down: The reality of being a police whistleblower
https://goodcopdown.wordpress.com/