Fact v Opinion

From what I've read the judge in Portugal has grasped the difference between fact and opinion.  It is to be hoped that other people involved in this case have the same understanding.  And are not putting out facts when they are opinions.

Only too true, Mary. That is what I hope as well.

I also hope that people who discount facts because they are awkward will be rumbled, however famous or influential they are.
It is a fact that the EVRD dogs alerted in all the places they alerted in. It is simply not credible that they were 'led' to do so by a corrupt dog handler, or that the fact that they alerted in all the places they did, and in no others, should not be taken account of. The facts of their alerts should not be ignored because they merely constitute indicative evidence, that needs to be backed up by other types of evidence, especially forensic evidence. It still remains a fact that all this indicative evidence exists, and should be added into the mix of new evidence.

Types of evidence, and the reliability of each type, is hardly ever discussed in this case. Direct evidence is often supposed to be the best kind of evidence, but often it is the circumstantial evidence which in the end turns out to be the most telling. Evidence of identification is the much prized direct sort of evidence... eg 'I saw that man there at that time', but it is notoriously UNreliable, because of environmental conditions like poor lighting, and it being only a fleeting glimpse etc! Evidence of what someone saw when they had not been specifically asked to look out for it is even worse that if they had IYSWIM. It is unreliable because, with the best will in the world, people's perceptions and impressions are often not very accurate, their memories, with the best of intentions, fail, and they then embroider, unknowlingly, to fill in the gaps.