John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
Page 10 of 10 • Share
Page 10 of 10 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
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
joyce1938- Posts : 890
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 124
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 85
Location : england
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
Saw this on Twitter feed:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
sallypelt- Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
Join date : 2012-11-10
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
Sorry can't read it
JohnyT- Posts : 350
Activity : 503
Likes received : 139
Join date : 2014-06-01
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
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 magnificationJohnyT wrote:Sorry can't read it
sallypelt- Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
Join date : 2012-11-10
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
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!
____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 28210
Activity : 40913
Likes received : 7691
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
If you can access this link there's a pdf
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 28210
Activity : 40913
Likes received : 7691
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
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.
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
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.
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 Site | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||||||
Maternal repeat lengths (Maternal genotype) | 8,4 | 5,9 | 6,8 | 3,7 | 5,6 | 8,4 | 4,7 | 9,4 | 3,8 | 5,4 | ||||||
Paternal repeat lengths (paternal genotype) | 7,9 | 4,3 | 9,3 | 6,4 | 8,9 | 5,5 | 3,8 | 9,3 | 7,6 | 3,7 | ||||||
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 |
Randomly inherited profile | 4,7 | 9,3 | 6,9 | 3,4 | 6,8 | 4,5 | 4,8 | 9,9 | 8,6 | 5,7 |
Probability of inheriting that particular marker pair | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
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.
____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 28210
Activity : 40913
Likes received : 7691
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
@GeG
That's not the same a Sallypelt's pasted tweet which is much easier to understand and even more damming
That's not the same a Sallypelt's pasted tweet which is much easier to understand and even more damming
Guest- Guest
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
Yes, I've messaged Janine to find the whole post...bear with me.
____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 28210
Activity : 40913
Likes received : 7691
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
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.
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.
____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 28210
Activity : 40913
Likes received : 7691
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
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 : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
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!
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
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 35069
Activity : 42327
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
Don't forget Gordon Brown's interference with the FSS.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 28210
Activity : 40913
Likes received : 7691
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
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?
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 : 1334
Activity : 1817
Likes received : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
I think is generally known as baffling you with science .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?
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 35069
Activity : 42327
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
Verdi wrote:I think is generally known as baffling you with science .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?
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 .
sandancer- Posts : 1282
Activity : 2377
Likes received : 1095
Join date : 2016-02-18
Age : 71
Location : Tyneside
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
He's laying low - lay low lay low, how lowe can you go ?!?sandancer wrote:Verdi wrote:I think is generally known as baffling you with science .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?
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 ?
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 35069
Activity : 42327
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
sandancer wrote:Verdi wrote:I think is generally known as baffling you with science .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?
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"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
____________________
Goncalo Amaral: "Then there's the window we found Kate's finger prints.
She said she had never touched that window and the cleaning lady assured that she had cleaned it on the previous day....it doesn't add up"
NickE- Posts : 1404
Activity : 2151
Likes received : 499
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 49
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
Thanks NickE .
"Highly skilled " ! Hmm !
"Highly skilled " ! Hmm !
____________________
Be humble for you are made of earth . Be noble for you are made of stars .
sandancer- Posts : 1282
Activity : 2377
Likes received : 1095
Join date : 2016-02-18
Age : 71
Location : Tyneside
John Lowe,match of DNA
Sandancer,Not only "highly Skilled"but offered a proposed "interpretation of Madeleine's DNA",15;19 Markers with Four un-obtainable markers,FSS report!?sandancer wrote:Thanks NickE .
"Highly skilled " ! Hmm !
willowthewisp- Posts : 3392
Activity : 4912
Likes received : 1160
Join date : 2015-05-07
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
Verdi wrote:I think is generally known as baffling you with science .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?
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 : 1334
Activity : 1817
Likes received : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15
Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS
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
Guest- Guest
Page 10 of 10 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Similar topics
» Further Analysis of the Last Photo
» DNA sample in McCanns’ car ‘has 100% match to Madeleine’
» From the archives - Madeleine McCann DNA 'an accurate match'
» DNA sample in McCanns’ car ‘has 100% match to Madeleine’
» From the archives - Madeleine McCann DNA 'an accurate match'
Page 10 of 10
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum