No I am voicing a fact. A fact which any person with a high school education post 1990 should be aware of. It is not exactly expert level, it would be a bit like asking if someone was an expert historian because they claimed world war 2 ended in 1945!!
Any high school student who is not in the lower streams would be able to tell you that a person inherits all their genetic material from their biological parents and as such the only unique thing is the sequence, not the alleles. Therefore if a sequence cannot be identified in a mixed sample it is impossible to tell if it came from that person , their parents, grandparents, or other relatives. The fact is that all fifteen alleles that matched madeleine also matched her parents, as well as grandparents and to a lesser extent other relatives, and given that those people were witnesses repeatedly using the vehicle the material is found in there is no way to suspect the alleles did not come from them. The claim is is like a 15/19 chance they belonged to madeleine is just a complete misunderstanding of the most basic rule sof genetic inheritance.
It is a fact that not one swab tested positive for madeleine's dna.
Here is a link to some basic GCSE bitesize notes. The end pages where their dicusses inherited disease explains how alleles are pased from parent to child.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c_pre_2011/genetics/genesinheritencerev8.shtml
This page is from the NHS
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Genetics/Pages/Facts.aspx
But is really is the most basic aspect of genetics and when it comes down to it we all instictively understand it, we all know that two blue eyed people will not have a brown eyed child, we know a person of african descent, and a person of white european descent will have a child whose skin colour will be lighter than the african parent, but darker than the white parent, we know that two healthy people can have a child with a genetic illness becuase the halthy parents carried the gene recessively, but that they may have other children who are healthy because they passed down different alleles etc.
As for the dogs, if we are to say the dogs are 100% accurate then when it comes to the car it means that no body was ever in the boot as only keela alerted there. This is where the mixed sample was found, therefore it means that this was not anything to do with a body and in fact assuming keela is right it contained fresh blood, not old blood so could not have come from a body.
Again assuming the dog is accurate we then have eddie and keela both alerting to the card fobb (with eddie alerting to the door where the card fobbw as found). Now the material on this belonged to gerry mccann, so we have three options 1) whenever eddie alert it means there is a dead body there, therefore the real gerry mccann must be dead or he touched a dead body and then only touched the card fobb 2) the dogs are not always reliable 3) eddie alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood, from living humans as well as cadaver scent and was therefore most likely alerting to dried blood from gerry mccann. This is the most likely one and corresponds to the handlers assertion of what the dog will alert to, but it also means that this applies to everywhere the dog alerts and therefore the dog alerts cannot be taken as having to indicate there is a body there.
If we are to assume eddie's alerts mean a dead body was present it also does not add up when we look at flat 5a. It means that if eddie is correct that the only places a body ever touched (noting grimes said that transferance occurs) was behind the sofa, and in the wardrobe. Therefore assuming the body was madeleine it meant she either died in the wardrobe or behind the sofa and these were the only places her body touched indicating that at no point was her body moved for resucitation etc, she did not die in her sleep (as it is unlikely she went to sleep wedged behind a sofa or in the wardrobe) and at no point did anyone who touched her body immediately touch anything else.
As her body was not found that evening it means that between the time madeleine was last seen alive by someone outside the tapas nine (five thirty) and eight thirty when other guests put the mccanns at the tapas bar, not only did madeleine die, but for some reason her parents decided not to help her and hide the fact she had died, and then in either an hour, half an hour or during one of two sets of five minutes they walked out of their apartment carrying her body on foot, and hid it somewhere that it was not found even by the dogs (which were looking that very night). Now making this even harder is the fact it got dark at eight thirty which means either they hid her in broad daylight without being seen, or in the dark in just five minutes. Now because we assume the dog alert means a body was there, it means that madeleine most likely did not die when her parents were out since this gives them 5 mins to dispose of the body (and jeremy wilkins saw gerry at the flats at the end of his 5 mins alone) and as it indicates she did not die in bed or lying on a sofa she did not die of an overdose. Therefore what is the motive for not trying to help her and covering it up, as accidents happen, children fall and hurt themselves all the time. Why refuse your child help, why not admit there was an accident, why cover it up? So I cannot see any credible theory that fits with these facts and gives the mccanns a motive, gives them a chance to hide a body on foot most likely in daylight, and not only have the body only touch two places in the flat, but not manage to touch anythign themselves and thus transfer the scent. And no-one else has come up with a theory for this either, but if anyone has a theory that fits with the known facts then could they please voice it.
Then if we assume the dog alerts mean a dead body was present we have the problem that the dog did not alert anywhere in the car accept the car door that held the card fobb and the card fobb and that only gerry mccann's dna was found on the fobb. Now if we are to ignore the fact the handler said the dog would alert to dried blood (which we have to do, as we ignored it when dealing with the flat) it means either the real gerry mccann is dead, or that somehow he touched a dead body and then touched the card fobb. But 1) why did this transferance not occur in 5a and 2) how did he touch a dead body with no-one seeing when he was being followed by the world's media, and had police, flo's, consular staff, MW staff, friends and family around him all the time. Surely someone might have noticed them handling a dead body. And why, because assuming the dog is accurate it means no body was ever actually in the car, so why would they handle a dead body if not to move it. And how if whoever used the card fobb managed to transfer the scent to the fobb did it not transfer anywhere else such as the steering wheel, the gearstick, the door handles, the seatbelt etc, all of which they would have touched within a few seconds of touching the fobb.
the most likely explanation is that Grime is correct, and his dog will alert to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person as well as cadaver scent. It explains why the dog alerted to the fobb, but nowhere else - gerry got a bit of his own blood on the fobb, but not on the steering wheel etc.
It explains the alerts in the flat, a previous occupant walked around the flat for nealy an hour trying to stem bleeding, and at least two children who stayed there had cuts, one was a previous tennent who had to get stiches whilsts she was there, and another is madeleine mccann who is seen on video cutting herself boarding the plane to get there. Any other explanation means ignoring grime's statement about the dog, and does not make sense (i.e how did the scent transfer to the fobb and nowhere else).
It is also worth noting that the evrd was not used to check the entire resort just a handful of flats.
