I don't see your problem with Lowe's explanation, Pathfinder.
It seems logical to me.
The thing I have long found infuriating about
all experts (and to be clear, John Lowe
is one) is that they just
will not commit themselves (unequivocally) to any darned thing.
John Lowe was invited to answer a specific and narrow question (and did so).
He was asked whether the forensic result from the boot of the car advanced knowledge (about whether Madeleine had been transported somewhere dead in the boot of the car); or whether it
didn't.
Because it was no part of his brief to, Lowe did not consider wider considerations, such as the idea that hiring a car 3 weeks after Madeleine's abduction and transporting her somewhere dead was plain barking. He didn't, even, consider that the dog-reaction was forensically established and innocent.
He simply considered: from the forensic analysis --
alone -- can we state, certainly, that Madeleine was transported somewhere dead in the car?
Or can we state, certainly, that Madeleine
wasn't?
Anwers to both questions:
no and
no.
From forensic analysis
alone it didn't definitively rule out that Madeleine had been taken somewhere dead in the Renault.
And it didn't definitively rule it in.
State of knowledge (about whether Madeleine was taken somewhere dead in the car, or whether she wasn't) exactly the same
after the forensic analysis as
before.
No advancement (in solving the mystery of what happened to Madeleine) from the forensic analysis.
In that sense,
inconclusive.
