The Darwin Exception

because it's not always survival of the fittest – sometimes the idiots get through

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 968,796 People Stopped By
  • Awards & Honors

    Yesh, Right! I don't HAVE any "Awards & Honors" - so nominate me for something - I want one of those badge things to put here. I don't care what it is - make up your own award and give it to me. I'm not picky.

Archive for the ‘Dogs’ Category

What’s that, Garus?? Timmy is in the well?!?

Posted by thedarwinexception on June 8, 2011

Well, thank God Dr. Arpad Vass is done. It was distracting listening to him yesterday. And it was painful to watch Baez make a fool of himself over and over. Instead of some of those ridiculous motions that he made, he should have been preparing himself for some of this technical testimony – and, of course, writing motions to redact the videos.

I truly question Casey’s ability to have a fair and effective trial. I’ll wait until the defense case begins to truly gauge Baez’s abilities, but right now I think they are questionable at best, and nonexistent at worst.

It’s really a shame.

First up today, the state recalls Gerardo Bloise. He testifies that he received a bag of trash from Awilda McBryde on July 16th, 2008. He removed the plastic bag that contained several trash items, and did a visual inspection of the items, as well as photographed it. The mouth of the plastic garbage bag was slightly open when he received it.

Bloise began to inspect the items that were in the white garbage bag. He removed the items through the opening in the garbage bag without cutting or tearing the bag. He took each item out of the bag and since some of the items int eh bag were wet, he placed the items from the bag in the “dry room”. The items were in the dry room for approximately two days. This is a room in the forensics lab that they use to dry out wet items.

Bloise says that the bag gave off the odor of normal trash, and did not smell like the car.

Once the items were removed from the dry room, Bloise placed them in a cardboard box and placed them in an evidence locker. They were dry at that time.

The state introduces pictures of the trash – pictures in the bag, out of the bag, in the drying room, out of the drying room, the paper items, the non paper items, the items wet, all spread out……yeah, it’s trash. Although it does make me wonder about my own kitchen trash. Can you imagine Gerardo Bloise going item by item through a typical daily bag of your trash? What would be put into evidence? Linda Drane Burdick would be up there questioning Bloise: “Yes, is this a picture of a pile of dog shit from a spoiled Cairn terrier?” “Yes” “Is this 14 boxes of empty Little Debbie Snack Cake boxes?” “Yes” “Is this a receipt from McDonald’s for 4 Super Sized Number Two Meal Deals?” “Yes – we are assuming it was an error, because it says number of diners – one.” (They don’t know Paul….) I doubt they’d have to put my trash into the “dry room” though. Unless they wanted to dry out the dog poop.

Bloise then itemizes the 37 items found in the trash bag: Bloise documented each item and placed them in separate envelopes.

1. Empty Cherry Coca Cola Can
2. Empty Coca Cola Classic Can
3. Empty Milwaukee’s Best Light Beer Can
4. Empty Sprite Can
5. Empty Copenhagen Tobacco Tin Can
6. One Hair Pin
7. 3 Plastic Tie Wraps
8. Empty Dr. Pepper Soda Can
9. Empty Pepsi Can
10. Empty Mountain Dew Can
11. Oscar Meyer Plastic Container
12. Empty Small Crystal Light Container
13. Empty Crystal Light Bottle with brown liquid inside
14. Bottle of Kiwi Sport Cleaner
15. Empty Bottle of Arm & Hammer Detergent
16. Crystal Light Soft Drink Mix
17. Empty Black Container
18. Empty Broken Pizza Box
19. Empty Carton of Cherry Coke
20. Empty Velveeta Cheese Box with Napkin Attached
21. Empty Carton of Velveeta
22. Empty Velveeta Box
23. Empty Package of Parliament Light Cigarettes
24. Empty Package Marlboro Cigarettes
25. Empty Package Trident Splash
26. 2 Empty Aluminum Wraps of Velveeta Cheese
27. White Plastic Hangar – Broken
28. Empty Wrapper Italian Bread – Roma – with Napkin attached to it
29. Document of Full Sail Registration
30. 3 Receipts
31. 4 Air Freshener Sheets
32. 5 Napkins
33. Plastic Wrapper of Stouffer’s Garlic Chicken
34. 3 Small Pieces Plastic Wrap
35. 3 Pieces of Aluminum Foil
36. Empty Can of Sprite Soda
37. Piece of Fabric (Made in Honduras)

All the cans were empty – as was the pizza box and the Velveeta cartons– (so one wonders where any smell would be coming from)

Baez crosses – He asks if the trash was originally wet, and if Bloise put it in a dry room, if by doing that Bloise essentially destroyed evidence? Baez placates the witness by saying, you now, poor Bloise had no idea this would be critical evidence – and it wasn’t his intention to destroy evidence, but, you know, ultimately, that’s what happened. OK – well, altered then, not destroyed. Bloise says he just received evidence and he went by the protocol and preserved it. That’s all he did – preserved it. And documented it – he preserved and documented it. He destroyed nothing – the evidence is there.

Baez then shows Bloise a plastic bag containing paper towels. At one time they were moist – then they went into the dry room and dried – then put in a plastic bag. (Which is a mistake – all evidence should be put in paper, not plastic. Plastic tends to hold moisture and break compounds down.) Baez takes Bloise to task for putting this in a plastic bag – he asks about DNA evidence and what might be destroyed by being in plastic. Bloise says that at the time he inspected the paper towels and saw nothing of forensic value, so he put the paper towels in a plastic bag. Baez says, well, you know, it wasn’t Bloise’s intention to destroy evidence. Or alter it, excuse me, ALTER evidence.

On Re-direct Burdick asks why they dry evidence before it is stored. Bloise says it is to allow for better inspection of the items. It is also to retard bacterial growth – like mold. Burdick also has the witness if the paper towels were stored in plastic because there was bug larvae n it. The witness doesn’t remember.

On Re-Cross, Baez asks about the air samples done on the dry garbage. Bloise says he has no knowledge of air samples done. Baez asks if DNA samples can be obtained from bug larvae. (Can they? Because that’s like Jurassic Park Shit, isn’t it?? They aren’t going to start cloning raptors, are they??)

The witness is excused. And Arpad Vass is back. Only for the limited purpose of re-identifying the can containing the carpet sample that he testified about yesterday. Oh – that’s too bad. Seems Ashton yesterday showed him the wrong can and he identified it. The defense is going to have a field day with this – well, probably not. I don’t think Baez is skilled enough for “field days” – but give this scenario to Johnny Cochran and there would be motions for striking the witnesses entire testimony. Tsk. Tsk.

Baez crosses. He asks “So, yesterday, you testified about a can you didn’t even do analysis on?” And Vass says “Well, a can – I didn’t test a can.” Baez asks if he identify the can yesterday through markings on it – and if he admitted the wrong piece of evidence – and if this is because he only works at a research facility, and not a forensics lab, and they aren’t familiar with handling important pieces of evidence. The witness just kind of shrugs and says “Eh….it was a can…” But you know, this was a huge error. One would expect a scientist and an expert witness to be more aware of small details. The jury can wonder if, you know, if he’s this sloppy – well, what else is he sloppy about?

The state then calls Michael Rickenbach. He works for the FBI as a forensic chemist examiner. (Here’s the Forensic chemist Baez wanted yesterday…) Rickenbach has a PhD in Chemistry. He’s been qualified as an expert witness before – like 12- 15 times. Mainly in Federal Court. (Baez has no objections to him being submitted as an expert witness – he must be excited for a chemist at last!)

The witness was given some items from this case for examination in August, 2008 Ashton shows him all the things he had examined and has him identify them and the items are entered into evidence.

This witness was sent the items specifically to test for the presence of chloroform. He says when he received the items, he opened each one individually, noted each of them for any specific characteristics of staining or noticeable defects. He then took samples from each item and placed the samples in glass vials and subjected each to head space gas chromatography.

The first item he did testing on was a piece of the spare tire cover. He opened the can, observed the material inside, took a cutting based on staining, put it in a sealed gas vial and subjected it to head space gas chromatography. The witness testifies that residues of chloroform were present in the sample.

The next item was a piece of the left side of the trunk liner. He did the same analysis. The result was that chemicals consistent with chloroform were present in the sample. (Consistent with but not an identification – one test didn’t show positive results, one did…)

The next item tested using the same methods was the right side of the trunk liner. The result was that chemicals consistent with chloroform were present in the sample.

Cross of Witness: The witness testifies about the GCSM. This is a sensitive machine, and can pick up chemicals in water. The machine can break down compounds into very small chemical samples. The second test the witness used was the same as the GCSM, but using a different detector.
Chloroform is usually found in a liquid state – it was not in a liquid here – but when put through the GCSM, it detected the small amounts in the materials. Chloroform can be detected in lots of cleaning agents, including detergents. Chloroform can also be found in water. Baez asks if chloroform can be found in chlorinated swimming pools, the witness doesn’t know. When detected in cleaning products, the chloroform found was found in very small amounts- like in this case.

The witness then explains what a chromatogram is – basically it’s the output from the GCSM. It’s a graph showing the levels of any single chemical the GCSM has detected. The vertical axis, shows the intensity or level of chemical present, the horizontal axis, shows how long it took for that specific chemical to be released from the sample.

Baez asks the witness what the difference is between a quantitative and a qualitative analysis. The witness explains that in a qualitative analysis, you are just trying to identify what is in a sample, a quantitative analysis tells you how much is there.

The witness testifies that when he did his analysis he had an internal standard, and ran dual tests on the samples. The witness testifies that the amount of chloroform he found in the sample was a small amount. It was not “shockingly high” levels of chloroform.

OK – now this, again, is little disingenuous and a little confusing, maybe. This chemist was not running air samples. He was testing actual pieces f fabric – where one would expect to have only “trace amounts” of chloroforms, if there was any present at all. Chloroform evaporates very quickly. Dr. Vass did air samples – and found “shockingly high” levels. Trace amounts of compound in the fabric are consistent with the “shockingly high” air samples. I hope the prosecution points this out to the jury and makes them understand the difference.

Baez goes through each of the samples that Rickenbach tested – and the results he got.

Q22 – A Piece of the spare tire cover in an airtight can– residue of chloroform. Significantly lower levels than the positive sample.

Q23 – Another portion of the Spare tire Cover – residue of chloroform.

Q24 – Left side of trunk liner – chemical consistent of chloroform – one of the tests detected low levels – second method found no trace.

Q25 – Right side of trunk liner – chemical consistent of chloroform – one of the tests detected low levels – second method found no trace.

Q44 – Piece of spare tire cover – residue of chloroform at low levels.

Q45 – Piece of Spare tire cover – residue of chloroform at low levels.

Baez then asks about the low level residues – he asks if theses levels are common in cleaning products – and the witness says yes.

On re-direct, Ashton asks the witness If he fund any other chemicals present that would be found in cleaning products. The witness says that he was tasked only with analyzing the samples for chloroform – he didn’t look for any other chemicals.
The witness testifies that “low” is a subjective term. And, like I hoped they would, the prosecution does ask the witness about searching for chloroform in a solid form. The witness says that this is the first time he’s ever done that – generally if he is analyzing for chloroform, he will be looking for it or testing it in a liquid form. So the witness does agree that he has no perspective to judge exactly what a “high” or “low” amount of chloroform in a carpet would be.

The witness then testifies that the way the large piece of tire cover came to him was packed in a box. And that the basic properties of chloroform would allow for the chloroform to evaporate off of the item rather quickly. Chloroform is a volatile chemical and doesn’t stay around long – the witness says that he was quite surprised to find any chloroform at all – that he would have thought that the chloroform would have all dissipated.

Ashton then goes through the comparison of the control standard to the actual sample the witness rant the test against. The control sample was 0.01% in water – or 100 ppm (parts per million). This is what he compared the sample to.

Reluctantly, the witness gives a rough estimate of the percentage of chloroform in sample Q22, which is 5% of the amount in the control sample. Q23 was approximately .1% of the control sample (This was the unsealed spare tire cover.) The sealed container contained much greater levels than the unsealed container. Q44 was 1% of the control sample. Q45 was approximately .2% of the control sample. The witness also points out that the cuttings he took were not uniform. One piece may have been larger than another, and therefore could have more chemical on it. The witness also says that it is possible that much of the chloroform could have evaporated by the time the samples were taken.

This witness says he has never tested for chloroform in air samples.

ReCross by Baez – Baez asks the witness to again say that doing a quantitative analysis of the amounts in the samples the way the prosecution asked him to do was not the correct way to do it – as Baez puts it “you wouldn’t want to mislead a jury that way, right?” Which pisses Ashton off. But the judge lets him answer and the witness says that he wants to be precise, and he can’t, and he doesn’t want to mislead anyone. Baez then brings up that since this witness has never tested carpet samples for chloroform before – or tested any solid material for chloroform – that this is all a guess for him. The witness then brings up that he does know the packaging would affect the amount of chloroform – since chloroform is a volatile chemical.

Ashton then asks the witness that if the witness can’t quantify legitimately the amount of chloroform in the carpet sample – the how is the witness able to answer defense counsels question about comparing the amount to the amount in cleaning supplies? The witness says that he can compare the amounts in the samples and the amounts in cleaning products only to the positive control – the witness says that when he said the amounts were similar – he meant only that they were detectable – not that they were quantitatively similar – because he doesn’t know the precise quantity in the samples.

The witness is excused.

The next witness is Jason R. Forgey. He is in the K-9 unit of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. He is a K-9 handler and has been handling dogs since 1991 exclusively. Forgey cross trained with the K-9 unit before actually working with the unit. Originally he was a part time handler in the bloodhound unit. The initial scent training is 5 weeks long. He and his dog did follow up training – a minimum of 2 tracks per month. He worked with canine Garrett for 10 or 11 months until Garrett was put down. Then he received a second dog, Ike, another bloodhound. Forgey then trained Ike, in scent discrimination – teaching the dog to learn the odor of what the handler scented him on. Forgey worked with Ike until 2004-5 when Ike was turned over to another handler. Forgey had multiple dogs he was training in different areas – including in 2002, when he worked with a dog named Bones who was trained as a single purpose dog. The dog Bones was trained to locate human remains. This was his “job”. Along with his obedience training, he is trained to detect human decomposition. The dog and handler go through 160 hours of specialty training in this area and then they take proficiency exams before they can be deployed in the field. Forgey was trained int his area after 9/11 when the two dogs that they had were converted to EOD (explosives) dogs. Forgey was then next in line to train with a Cadaver dog, so he trained two dogs at the same time – Ike and Bones.

Training a cadaver dog consists of first introducing the dog to the odor – to see if it is something he will be comfortable with. The they go through an “imprinting” stage – where the handler takes the dog straight to the odor and teaches it the behavior the handler would like the dog to display as his “Final Alert”. For instance, if you want the dog to sit when he finds the odor, during the imprint stage the handler will take the dog straight to the odor, and teach it to sit, and reward the dog when he completes this. The next phase of teaching the dog is “searching” – if you have the odor in a can, you would spread multiple cans around and give the dog his command and have the dog search for the can with the odor, and then sit as his final alert when he finds the can.

A “Final Trained Alert” can be any recognizable body change that the handler has trained the dog to do when the dog has found the source of a scent – a down, a sit, a lay. . A “Final Alert Phase” is when the dog is working the source of the odor – when he gets a whiff of the sent he is searching and there are changes in his body – whether that’s his breathing patterns, the lift of his muzzle, something the handler recognizes as the dog alerting to a scent.

When Forgery trained Bones – his Final Trained Alert was a sit. Forgey trained Bones with rags soaked in the chest cavities of cadavers. Over the course of training the cadaver dog, Forgey used bones (actual human bones, not just the dog’s name), placentas, blood, tissue, psuedo-scent for drowning victims (a pseudo-scent is a man made tablet that gives off a human scent. The trainers place the tablet into the water so the dogs can learn to hunt for drowning victims.) Forgey also used grave dirt as training aid.

After a while, the decision was made to have a full service dog rather than a single purpose dog. Bones was put into training as an apprehension dog, but he did not make it in this training so he was eventually given to Osceola county for work there as a single purpose dog.

So Forgey was given a full service dog – Garus, a German Shepherd. Garus was 20 months old when Forgey received him. Garus will be 9 this October. When Forgey first got Garus, they started a 400 hour school – teaching obedience, man tracking, scent discrimination, area searches, aerial searches, apprehension and hand and voice. Garus was then certified for case work. He is evaluated by two outside sources before certification. And when the dog is tested, the handler is tested. There is only one handler per dog. No one works with the dog but the assigned handler. After “graduation” the dog gets a break from school before going back and completing the 160 hour coursework in human remains detection. This was the same course Forgery had done with Bones, but Garus’s final trained alert is a “down” instead of a “sit”.

Forgery testifies that as an aid to training, Garus has never had a bone – not a regular meat bone or rawhide bone, because Forgey doesn’t want the dog to learn that bones are for chewing. Forgery also trains Garus around ham, meat, dumpsters, pizza, decomposing animals, horse rings – all kinds of distractions to ensure that the dog focuses on the scent he is trained for. The dog is also exposed to many different environments, like the fireman’s mock buildings. Forgey also exposed the dog to cars, training fields, concrete environments.

During training Forgey generally knows where the hidden scent is, but there are special training scenarios where the dog is tested along with the handler and neither one knows where the scent is. This is to avoid :bias” or “cuing” on the part of the handler that might create a false alert.

Garus underwent an evaluation within the department initially. And was then certified to do multi purpose jobs – then Garus went to a cadaver school hosted by an independent entity in Sarasota.

The state then has Forgery identify all the awards and certifications that he and Garus have been awarded. The defense has a problem with the records, and voir dire’s the witness.

Baez asks if Forgey is the keeper of these records – so that he can bring them to court and show the judge and show the jury that he and the dog are trained. The witness agrees.

Baez says that the records are inadmissible. The judge admits them anyway.

Burdick then goes through a training log to show how they are filled out and what information is contained in each one – where the dog was searching, where the training aid was located, whether or not the dog found the target, the total number of misses and false alerts, the environmental conditions (raining, temperature), and what kind of targets were used.

Burdick then goes through some photos of Forgey and Garus training at the school in Sarasota in both 2005 and 2006. The 2006 school was an advanced training course. The 2006 class taught the canines with more advanced distractions and harder searches in more advanced locations and conditions.

In both schools Garus had 4 false alerts and 2 misses. In a haunted house Garus missed 2 napkins with drops of blood on them – but he found 13 other items in the haunted house. Forgey said that the false alerts were due to doing 31 searches that day and the false alerts were due to him being bored and fatigued.

In a real world situation, a dog would never do 31 searches in one day.

Quarterly Garus and Forgey are evaluated by supervisors and monthly he is required to do maintenance training in 2 specialties.

Burdick asks if Garus has ever been trained using a situation where a body has been removed and Garus has to alert on the residual odor left behind. Forgey says that he has trained Garus in this scenario.

Since 2001 Forgey has received over 200 real world calls and ran almost 500 training scenarios. Garus is also a full service dog, and undergoes a lot of training. When Forgey is working, the dog is working.

Burdick then goes through Garus’s history – in 2005, Forgey had no real world calls. In 2006, Forgey had 6 real world calls, and one alert – that was a find – a dead body was found. In 2007, Forgey had 9 real world cadaver searches – no alerts. In 2008 Forgey had 71 cadaver searches with 3 alerts. 1 was a find – a mandible.
After July of 2008 Forgey had hundreds of tips and calls on this particular case. That’s why his search count went form 9 the year before to 71 this year. In a couple of the calls that they received, Fogery found areas that looked like graves. Garus alerted to neither of them, but they were dug anyway. Nothing was found.

Forgey had 12 real world calls in 2009 with one alert. That was a find. Garus found a drowning victim. In 2010 Forgey had 11 calls and no alerts.

Garus is currently retired. His last call was September of 2010 – he went down on a call.

Burdick then shows a video of Garus finding a dead body near a pond in 2006. But not before Baez stands and makes another motion that he feels is “A matter of law not a matter of facts”. He wants to stop the madness before it goes any further. The judge blows him off again.

Forgey explains the video, and how Garus performed in the video and what the conditions were.

Burdick then asks Forgey about his prior dog, Bone, and the find that this dog had made in real world calls. Forgey says that Bones had 4 finds in 11 months.

On July 17th 2008, Forgey was called to assist in this case. He responded to the forensics bay where Casey Anthony’s car was being held. To prepare for different jobs and functions, Forgey uses different tools and implements to alert the dog as to what he wants him to do. Since this was cadaver work, Forgey put Garus’s special collar on him and gave Garus the command to search. Forgey was given general information about the case, and was told there was a vehicle they wanted him to look at.

Because of Forgey’s training with the dog, he has been exposed to the smell of human decomposition. When he got to the bay, he could smell a strong odor. He asked the unit to move the car out of the bay – because there was biowaste in the bay. They moved the car to the parking lot, in the open air, to remove it from the biohazards in the bay.

Forgey then had Garus sweep the car next to the Sunfire, he did not alert on this car. He then swept the Sunfire with the doors closed. Garus alerted on the trunk area on this first pass, so Forgey had the tech crack open the driver’s door slightly for the next pass around the vehicle. When Garus again passed the driver’s door, he jumped into the car, in between the driver and passenger’s seat, and alerted towards the trunk area in the back seat.

Forgey continued to move so he wouldn’t create a false alert, and indicated for the tech to open the trunk. Garus then got out of the car and continued to walk around the car. When he got to the now cracked open trunk, Garus jumped up with his front paws in the trunk and gave an alert. Forgey was overwhelmed with the smell, and continued to walk around the car. Garus came out of the trunk, got to the right rear passenger tail light area, and then gave his Final Trained Alert, which was to lay down.

Forgey loaded the dog back into his vehicle and left the area. The next day Forgey and Garus went to the Anthony’s home address to do a sweep of the back yard. The detectives had a couple of specific area they wanted Forgey to look at, so upon arriving, Forgey went to see these areas. He then brought Garus to the backyard, off-lead, and gave Garus the command to search. Garus did not give an alert at the detective’s first area of concern. Garus did give an alert and a Final Trained Alert in the South East corner of the yard, which was near a playhouse. Forgey then removed Garus from the back yard and suggested to the detectives that they have another cadaver dog, Bones, come and search the area.
When Bones and his handler arrive, Forgey briefed her on what he wanted her to do, and the area of concern, and told her what he had done in the backyard, but not that Garus had alerted or where. He observed the sweep with Bones, but did not conduct it.

Cross examination – Baez points out that the Anthony backyard is not very big – there’s not an lot of grass area. Especially given the pool, playhouse and lanai area. Baez asks Forgey about Garus’s experience with residual odors that Forgey has testified about on direct. He had given 2 examples of bodies being removed and Garus alerting on the scent at a later time – one after 10 hours and one after 10 days. Baez asks if Forgey has had an opportunity to train with Garus on residual odors after 30 days. Forgey says he has finds that are older than 30 days – but Baez wants to know specifically about residual odors. The two residual cases in training that Garus had were in 2005and 2007.

When Forgey went to see the car Forgey had been told that this was the suspect’s car. Forgey brought the car outside of the bay it was because there was trash in there. Baez asks if Forgey is familiar with the forensics bay – Forgey says he doesn’t work there. Baez then asks if it was so that he did a “line-up” of the car. He first swept a car that was not involved – and then the suspect car. Forgey says yes.

Baez asks why he didn’t videotape this sweep of the car – Forgey says if he had known where they would be today he would have – but it’s not a common practice to video the searches. Baez brings out a handbook that the trainer Forgey studied under wrote. The handbook says to video tape the searches.

Baez says “You knew there was no body in the car – so whatever you did would be scrutinized later – but you still chose not to video tape the search.” Forgey says it isn’t in his procedures to video the searches.”

Baez asks about the dog training -and asks if it is generally true that it’s just Forgey and the dog there when they train. Forgey says “most of the time” – and Baez asks if the training logs are basically just whatever Forgey writes there. And this is not blind testing – the handler knows where the target is – the dog doesn’t, but the handler knows. And generally the evaluations are not blind searches, either. And part of what the dog gets as a reward is handler praise – and that is part of the motivation during the searches.

Baez asks about the alert in the Anthony’s yard. After Garus’s alert, the other dog handler was called, and then CSI was called – and they started to dig and search for remains in the yard. Forgey says they didn’t actually dig – they scraped the surface – but Forgey wasn’t present. And CSI found nothing – and the next day Garus came again, and after they scraped and Garus came back – he got no alerts.

Baez points out Forgey wrote a police report when the dog alerted, but didn’t write one when the dog didn’t alert. And on Forgey’s other “real world searches” – he has police reports for the hits but not for the “no alerts”. Baez points out that Forgey has no idea if evidence was later found at those areas where his dog showed ”no alert”.

In December 2008 Forgey was sent to the Suburban Drive area where Caylee was found. When Forgey was deployed there, he knew a body had been found – he was looking for missing bones. And Garus did not find any bones there. In fact, Garus did not alert at all, when Forgey knew that Caylee’s remains had been found there. Forgey says that yes, the dog was alerting and trying to get to the place where the body had been found, but Forgey wasn’t allowing him to get there. That’s not what he was there for – he was there to find other evidence, not to have the dog alert him to where the body had been. Forgey physically kept the dog from that area.
Baez asks about his prior depositional statement. Baez tries to impeach him with that statement, but as Baez reads it, it seems to confirm what the witness testified to – that Garus showed interest, changed behavior, but never gave his Final Trained Alert. Baez argues with the witness about “but your dog didn’t alert?” “Because I didn’t allow him to alert”, for a few minutes, and Baez kind of comes off as a jackass – saying things like “But you were there to find human remains!” And the witness answering “The remains had been found I was looking for what they didn’t find – I wouldn’t let my dog go to the exact place where the remains were found” and Baez retorting “You didn’t let your dog find human remains!!??” Just real jackassy comments.

On re-direct, Burdick asks the witness if he’s aware that his work is scrutinized every day – by the department, by his evaluators and by the public. The witness says yes, he’s aware of that. Burdick asks how many “real world” calls Forgey has gone on over the years with all of his dogs. The answer is over 3,000. Very few of those have been taped.

After Forgey went back to the Anthony home the second time and the dog didn’t alert – Forgey believes that whatever the dog was alerting to was on the surface and the scraping moved it or diminished it.

Burdick asks what a police report would say if he wrote one for a “no alert”, and Forgey says :it would say nothing – he would have nothing to report.

Burdick asks if the dog alerts to trash – and Forgey says no. The dog also doesn’t alert to Velveeta cheese, or Stouffer’s Chicken Packages, or Empty Copenhagen tins or empty soda cans.

Re-Cross – Baez asks about the witnesses belief about why the dog didn’t alert the second day. He says that the Officer doesn’t really know why the dog alerted – then didn’t. The witness can’t know if the dog lost the sent, or it was a false alert, or if there really was a body there.

Forgey says he can only guess from experience. Baez asks if this speculation is part of his testimony. The witness says “Speculation??? I testified that the dog alerted, then they scraped and then the dog didn’t alert.” Baez says that since the officer doesn’t know why the dog didn’t alert – that’s speculation. The officer says that yes, this is an unknown element to him. And Baez tries to extrapolate that to all the officers “alerts” with the dog – and Forgey says that in all other cases besides this case that when the dog alerted, he had a find. Baez quickly backtracks and says “Well, we’re talking about this case, let’s talk about this case” as if he wasn’t the one who tried to drag all the other cases into it to begin with. Baez says that in this case, the officer is speculating – and he’s speculating about the car, too. The witness says :Well, I believe the doctor has already testified that…” And Baez cuts him off. Baez asks if he saw anything in the trunk and the witness says no, but he smelled it – clear as day – he may not have seen anything – but he smelled it. Baez says “Let me make myself clear – when you don’t have remains found, and your dog alerts in that area – you are speculating It’s either that there was never any body there or there are residuals scents.” The witness says “As to the backyard, yes. As to the car, I smelled it clear as day.” Baez says “You’ve never been called out to smell things without your dog, have you?” (HA! That was funny, Baez.) The witness says no, but before he was a dog handler he worked the road and was called to many crime scenes with deceased bodies.

The Deputy is excused.

And so is the jury – with the promise of an Italian dinner as well as a steak dinner.

Posted in Crime, Dogs, Legal, News, Trials | Tagged: , , , , , | 13 Comments »