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

by **sandancer** 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 .

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 ?

by Verdi 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 .

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 ?!?

by NickE 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 .

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.]

by **sandancer** 25.03.17 17:55

Thanks NickE .

"Highly skilled " ! Hmm !

by willowthewisp 26.03.17 16:55

sandancer wrote:Thanks NickE .

"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!?

by ChippyM 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 .

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.

by Guest 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

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