I see it as more nuanced.
The existence of the alerts was a fact. The interpretation of the alerts and other evidence was open to opinion and expertise of those involved. The Court at first instance did not go behind those opinions and no evidence was presented to call the content of the investigation into question.
e.g. we have seen on here claims that impugn the dog handler - but this is not evidence that was presented to the court.
Implicitly, if not explicitly, there is, in the files, criticism of Grime, contained in the reports of Harrison.
First, it is clear that Harrison never wanted inspections of:
vehicles, besides those of Robert Murat's
Clothing. Thank goodness, none of Robert Murat's clothing was strewn over a floor for dogs to trample over and sniff. Neither should the McCanns' clothing have been. Especially not the same clothing twice in different spots. For a clue of what
Grime, acting autonomously, was about, there, you need to go to Detroit and the Bianca Jones case, where you will find Grime's modus operandi exactly replicated from Praia da Luz.
The McCanns' rented villa, simply because Madeleine never lived there.
If you read Mark Harrison's retrospective summary of all searches, you will find he is careful to acknowledge the input of Grime and his dogs
only in those inspections he (Harrison)
first recommended: the holiday apartments, the Murats' villa, vehicles owned or driven by Robert Murat
only
Areas in and around PdL.
That's it.
He never wanted clothing sniffed by the dogs
at all
Neither the Renault Scenic.
Neither the McCanns' rented villa, where Madeleine never lived.