Replies

If it is shown that Laci's scent (fresh) was hit on by dogs at the warehouse shortly after they started looking for her, would that mean Scott would have to give some sort of "innocent" explanation for why?

IMO, yes--as you said. But would he have to testify to give said "innocent" explanation? IMO, no. Suppose the dog handler gets up there and says, "My dog scented Laci at Scott's warehouse." The defense would cross-question the handler, of course. Maybe the defense couldn't get the handler to go back on that statement.

At that point, if the defense didn't want Scott to testify, it seems to me that the defense could just save its refutation for its argument. At the end, the defense counsel could say, "You heard that the dog scented Laci at Scott's warehouse. But they can't say with certainty when that scent the dog found was put there. They can only say that it had to be fairly recent for the dog to pick it up. It's quite possible that Laci's scent WAS at her own husband's warehouse. She went there with him sometimes. Some possessions of theirs which she had handled were taken there from time to time. This doesn't give any positive proof that Laci was at that warehouse on Dec. 24, and even then, what if she was? She had a vehicle. She had access to keys to Scott's warehouse"...etc., etc.

Two things" If Merlin is a Cadaver dog as I seem to remember, that's BAD for Snott; and 2)Was the "scent" picked up in the "other" secured rental unit? I don't believe Laci knew about the other one.

Mind if I chime in here? What if Scott did take Laci by the warehouse, say on the 23rd? What if there was someone at the warehouse (do they have other workers there?) who saw Laci with Scott? Possible?