Tuesday, June 7, 2011



First up this morning was Deputy Gerardo Bloise, lead crime investigator.  He spoke about the chain of evidence centered around the trash bag from Casey's car.

Deputy Bloise testified that when he received the trash bag from Awilda McBride.  A photo was shown to the jury of the white plastic bag as it laid on a brown paper sheet.  The paper that was under the white bag was the paper bags that McBride testified that she had put the white trash bag into.  There is liquid showing on one side of the white trash bag.  He then started to inspect the interior of the items inside the plastic bag.

When asked by Prosecutor Linda Drane-Burdick to describe the trash's smell, Deputy Bloise said that the trash items smelled like normal trash and did not smell like the car.  The items were in the Dry Room

He the said that he pulled out the items out in the Sheriff's office "Dry Room", so to dry them out. The next photo shown was an empty white trash bag with a bunch of trash next to it.   We see an empty pizza box, some plastic drink bottles, Arm & Hammer liquid laundry detergent bottle, napkins, aluminum foil, empty Marlboro Red cigarette box and what looks like food wrappers, like what you get when you have a hamburger.  Another photo showed more trash, including empty Crystal Lite bottle, plastic coat hanger, and various empty beer cans.

Another photo shown was a receipt from Fusion Ultra Lounge, which was also found in the trash bag. Jose Baez objected to this photo being admitted into evidence, citing relativeness, but was overruled by the judge.  Then a photo of a paper from Full Sail University shown, which Jose did not object to.

Linda Drane-Burdick then had Inspector Bloise identify sealed boxes for which he put the trash bag evidence into, and these boxes were entered into evidence.  Jose objected to one these boxes, citing to someone else who was involved in the chain of custody. The Judge said Ok, that he'll wait until he hears testimony from that one witness before entering that one boxed item into evidence.

Deputy Bloise then read off the 37 items that were found in the trash.  Most of the items were empty containers and wrappers, and said that there was NOTHING in the pizza box from Casey's car.


Grabbing a black cardboard, Jose went to the podium.

Jose: The trash you testified collecting, you said that it was wet, and then you put it into the drying room to dry. After you had them in the drying room, they were dry, is that correct?
Bloise: Correct.
Jose: I'm going to show you exhibit C, which are both photographs submitted into evidence (trash from the white trash bag).
Jose: These two photographs look completely different, right?
Bloise: Yes.

Jose: You had no idea that this would be critical evidence in this case, right?
Bloise: You had no idea that this trash would become disputed item
Jose: It was not your intention that you destroyed evidence
Drane-Burdick: OBJECTION!
Judge Perry: Objection sustained.

Jose: You had no idea that the evidence would be altered.
Bloise: When I received this trash, I proceeded to preserve it
Jose: Preserve it in a dry form
Bloise: Yes
Jose: And you had no idea that it would alter the evidence in this case
Bloise:  When I received the items, I just preserved it, and I don't consider that I destroyed any evidence.  I photographed the evidence and dried it out.
Jose: You had no idea that you were altering evidence critical in this case
Drane-Burdick: Objection
Judge Perry: Sustained
Jose: Now, I'm showing you a photograph of State's evidence 130 (photo published, which showed a ziplock bag with paper towels from the trash).  These paper towels were at one time moist, and then they were put into the dry room and then you put them into a plastic bag.
Bloise: Yes
Jose: Inspector Bloise, should items be needed for DNA, you should not put them into plastic bags, correct?
Bloise: At that time, it was not considered necessary to store them for DNA
Jose:  You anticipated this being important enough evidence to separate it, correct?
Bloise: Correct.
Jose: Yet, you put this into a plastic bag
Bloise: Yes
Jose:  You did not know that later on it would be important to be tested for DNA
Bloise:  At that time, I inspected the napkins very well, I don't see any important values such as blood or body fluids, for DNA, it was just wet, there was no indication that it had any indication for DNA
Jose: You know that you can test for saliva for DNA
Bloise: Saliva is very difficult for DNA testing
Jose: Semen, do you get DNA from semen?
Bloise: Yes
Jose: Anything for cell breakdown?
Bloise:  Yes
Jose: Ms Drane-Burdick mentioned there was insect larvae in the trash
Bloise:  What i answered is that i didn't see anything like that
Drane-Burdick:  Objection
Judge Perry:  Sustained!
Jose: Sir, you know that you can collect DNA from any cell in the body?
Drane-Burdick: Objection
Judge: Sustained
Jose: That's all I have

Judge Perry: Can the witness be excused.
Drane-Burdick: Yes.
Judge Perry: Thank you.

(As the lead inspector left the witness stand, he looked a bit rattled by Jose's questioning his actions that he may have destroyed key DNA evidence by drying things out and putting them into plastic bags.


Prosecutor Jeff Ashton brought forensics expert Dr. Vass back on the stand today, because the Dr. made a mistake reading a piece of evidence yesterday.

Jeff: I'm sorry to have to bring you back today, but I need to correct something from yesterday.  (Jeff handed a can over to Dr. Vass.  This can had been initialed by Dr. Vass).  This is the can that you tested other than the other one.  We just need to make that correction.  Jeff Ashton then submitted the can correction into evidence.  Jose Baez renewed all previous objections, for which the judge overruled them all.


Jose: Yesterday you testified to evidence that you did not examine.
Dr. Vass:  I looked at a can that I did not examine.
Jose: And you told the jury that your initials on that can...

Jeff: OBJECTION!  That's not in evidence.
SIDEBAR called.

Jose: Yesterday, you mistakenly identified a piece of evidence in this case.
Dr. Vass: Yes
Jose: Perhaps why you are not that familiar with chain of evidence is because you are not accustomed to handling evidence.
Jeff Ashton: Objection
Judge Perry: Sustained
Jose: You're not accustomed to handling chain of evidence.
Dr. Vass: No, we're not a forensics lab, so we don't handle evidence all that often.
Jose: And the sensitivity that the jury gets the right information...
Jeff: Objection

Dr. Vass is excused.


Since Jose Baez kept harping on Dr. Vass yesterday, that he was not a chemist, the prosecution brought in a FBI chemist to testify about his findings of chloroform in Casey's car trunk.

This chemist was very careful as he testified. Forensic chemist Michael Rickenbach testified to finding chloroform in carpet samples that were gathered from Casey's car trunk.  Under direct questioning, Rickenbach testified that he found small amounts of chloroform were found in Casey's car trunk.  Rickenbach testified that it was "consistent" with chloroform, but not "conclusive" to be chloroform.

Rickenbach testified that when he first received the can containing carpet sample from Casey's car, he detected the strong odor of human decomposition.


Jose Baez cross-examined Rickenbach, getting him to admit that in the carpet sample he received, that there wasn't that much chloroform, which he did.


The prosecution got back up and had Rickenbach explain that the reason there wasn't much chloroform was because the way he received the chloroform test samples, which was in a paper envelope and not sealed, since chloroform is a volatile substance, it had evaporated in the air during transport to him and prior to his testing.  The prosecution stressed that even after being allowed to evaporate during transportation, Rickenbach still was able to detect chloroform on the samples.

When asked about comparing chloroform with cleaning products, Rickenbach testified "On qualitative analysis, if we can detect chloroform in cleaning products, it's just the amounts are compared in the controls; that it's detectible".


Prosecutor Linda Drane-Burdick brought up the next witness, Deputy Jason Forgery, from the Orange County Sheriff's office.  He has been employed there since 1994, and as a K9 handler since 2001.  Prosecutors asked about his training to qualify for that position. He testified that he initially watched K9 trainings and then he received the dog in 2001 as a part-time handler. Afterwards, he went full-time as a K9 handler.   Forgey started off as a part-time bloodhound handler.

He testified how Bloodhounds track individuals.  He received training for 5 weeks.  His first dog was called Gerus.  After initial training, he did followup training with his dog, which consisted of a minimum requirement of two training tracks per month. An evaluator would come out quarterly to make sure the dog was working properly.  He worked with K9 Gerus for 10-11 months until they had to put him down. After that, he received his second dog, Ike, which was another bloodhound dog.  He trained with that dog as well.  He explained how one teaches the dog to find specific individuals, which means that if he puts out three samples shoes with one individual's scent, the dog has to find that person correctly before he can move to the next stage of certification training.  Deputy Forgery worked with Ike for years until 2004, when Ike was given to another handler.

At one point, he was handling multiple dogs for training. In addition to Ike, in 2002, he received a German Shepard called Bones whose specialty (a single purpose dog) was finding human remains, aka trained to detect human decomposition. Training consists of 160 hours, after which the dog is certified and deployed into the field.  Deputy Forgery was chosen for multiple training because the two dogs they did have were converted over to EOD dogs after 911 (EOD dogs is an explosive sniffing dog).

The deputy detailed how he trained dogs to identify the smell of human remains, explaining when the dog found the scent of human remains, he would sit.  His dogs were trained with rags soaked with decomposing body fluids.  The deputy's dog during the Casey's Anthony investigation was called Bones.  There came a time after the investigation of Casey, that Bones was retired.  The reason that the Orange County Sheriff's office decided to retire Bones, was because the Sheriff's office needed a "full service dog" and not a "specific service dog" which Bones was. Although Deputy Forgery tried to train Bones to become full service dog, including being an Apprehension Dog, he didn't make it, so they retired him. Bones ended up going to a Captain, and then went to Sheriff Brewer. At the time Bones was in service, he was the only sworn dog that could detect human remains, so he and Deputy Forgery worked multiple counties.  After Bones was retired, the deputy got Gerus, a dog that the Sheriff's office purchased and imported from Germany.  Gerus was 20 months old when the deputy received him.  He will be nine this October.

During training, the deputy trainers always tried to trick the dogs. To ensure proper, consistent training, the deputy said that Bones never had a recreational bones at home, so to avoid confusion.  They trained Bones around gas, cheeseburgers, pizza, decomposing animals, where other animal scents were, around where horses were, making sure Gerus would alert to the scent correctly.

Drane-Burdick: Aside from a training aid to distract Gerus, did you expose him to different environments, such as buildings, cars, etc before he does police work.
Deputy: Yes, I tried to expose him to everything I could think of at the time. I went to the disaster sites and distractors, put training aids in drainage pipes, in cars, outside of cars, in fields.  After training, Gerus went with the deputy to training school, where the training aids are not known to the deputy or the dog.  It's how they evaluate the trainer and the dog as a team.
Drane-Burdick: What was done with Gerus to avoid false alert, via queuing by the handler.
Deputy: We go to great lengths to avoid false cues.  Those problems usually only happen with newer, inexperienced handlers.  Gerus went through an evaluation by an outside agency after his initial evaluation by the Sheriff's department in Sarasota Florida, by Andy Resmond, who's well known as a training program, a week-long seminar.


Linda Drane-Burdick resumes questioning Deputy Forgery's testimony.  He testified that K9 Gerus was the dog that was used in the Casey Anthony case.  Jose Baez objected to the K9 dog's certification documents being admitted into evidence, which the judge overruled and the certification was entered into evidence.

The dog's certification was kept as a business record at the Orlando Sheriff's department.  The deputy also spoke about the training courses that Gerus completed.  Documents associated with K9 Garris' training, including training logs through September 2008 for cadaver training, were also submitted.


Jose asked if the deputy was in charge of record keeping of the K9 training.  Answer was "That's correct".  With regard to the training logs, that had to do with this handler trained the dog.  This had nothing to do with performance out in the field, field performance (not training).

Jose had no further questions.

No wait, Jose lied again... he objected, referenced some ruling, saying that K9's are not admissible into evidence, for which Judge Perry referenced another ruling, and said that the K9's certifications would be allowed into evidence.

Linda Drane-Burdick came back to the podium and published another certification document.

Then a K-9 Training Log was shown to the jury.  With eight targets on this training document, weather information, temperature, humid or overcast or any kind of fog are listed on this document.  This document is the same one that was used for all of Gerus' trainings.

Various photographs were then shown to the deputy. They were of he and K9 Gerus during trainings.  They were entered into evidence, with no objection from the defense.

Photographs of a haunted house were shown, where two real bones were hidden amongst fake bones, to test K9 Gerus.  (As the photographs were being prepared to be shown, he was seen snickering at the defense table, as to the photographs being shown).  Another photo showing K9 searching a sewer pipe and multiple ones where the deputy and Gerus are out in the field were shown.  In several of these photographs, the deputy explained that in the photo, Gerus is indicating finding the correct item.  Another photo was shown of Gerus wining an award, for which he received a ball and praise as his reward.    Deputy testified that Gerus did have a miss after working all day, and in the haunted house he's missed two drops of blood, but found thirteen other items.  Gerus also hit on an item that wasn't there, in 2005 he had false alerts after doing 31 searches that day, saying that the dog was tired. The deputy indicated that on his report, that the dog was tired and appeared to be bored at the end when he hit on false positives.  One other day, there were 13 searches for which the dog did a false alert; no reason given that day.

Drane-burdick: Would you ever do 31 searches a day in a real-world scenario?
Deputy: That would never happen in a real life search; it's usually one search.

When asked how often Gerus underwent training review with a supervisor, from 2005-2010, the deputy answered that he was evaluated 21 times.  training records were kept for those evaluations, and there were NO misses during those evaluations.


When asked if K9 Gerus was trained by the deputy on residual odor, the deputy said Yes.  He explained that the first time that Gerus was tested on residual odor detection was 9/9/2005, when the deputy took him to a body that had been recovered next to a retention pond. The body had been deceased for seven days. He brought Gerus to where the body had been ten days later, and the dog alerted to two bones that were missed by investigators ten days ago.  On 4/04/2006, a transient was discovered deceased, about 25 yards from the road.  There was food around the deceased female's body. The deputy ran a training with Gerus due to the food source, and reported that Gerus had no false alerts.  On the third reported document, dated 7/22/2007, a body had been removed from the side of the roadway. Ten hours after the body was removed, Gerus had no problems with false alerting. He hit on that area correctly.


On July 15th, 2008, did you have several call-outs of suspicious grave sites.  The police received hundreds of tips on this case.  When he and Gerus responded to tip calls, did he notice that there was disturbed dirt, possible a recent shallow grave. (Casey looks on with interest). Gerus did not alert, but they were dug up and found to be dead animals.

In 2009, Gerus had 12 cadaver searches with one alert.  Result was a find. Circumstance was a drowned victim, who was till in the water, and had not surfaced.  In 2010, they had eleven searches and no alerts/finds.   Gerus is now retired, last day was Sept. 24, 2010.

A female in 2006, 5/29/2006, Gerus alerted. A male called in and said that he had heard that there was a deceased female. the deputies went out there by the pond and could not find anything. The helicopter looked as well.  They switched crews and still didn't find anything.  He brought Gerus, and he was alerted that there was a large alligator in the pond, and he asked that the helicopter stay around to watch the alligator.  It was dark out, and a video was produced as to the events of that evening as they occurred.

Drane-Burdick asked to play the video for the jury.
Jose objected to scope, and asked for sidebar.
Judge Perry then watched the video by himself.

We wait to see if he allows it to be shown to the jury.

Jose Baez objected to the allowance of the K9's certification process, the dog's training processes and the video should not be shown because it "improperly bolsters" the K9s reliability.  Judge Perry ruled that it was all to be allowed because it's up to the jury to make its decision as to whether or not the dog is reliable.

The video was them played for the jury.  It's from a helicopter, and you see the dog in the water, sniffing around and the handler is holding its leash and following him.  we then see a man's body in the video and the dog starts leading the trainer to the man's body, looks/makes eye contact with the trainer (the deputy on the witness stand) and then the body was found.

The deputy then testified about K9 Gerus, who underwent 21 evaluations.  As the deputy was testifying as to how the dog found various dead bodies.  One story was when he received a call from a person who's house dog brought back a human jaw, and when the deputy arrived, he took Bones to the backside of a play area of a church, and the dog found a lower torso, which had been pulled apart by animals.  Bones also found another body that was buried under the garage floor. Bones also found another dead body in a field, which was on the same day and part of the same crime case.

Another sidebar called.

Drane-Burdick (DB): Deputy, were you called to assist with the disappearance of Caylee Marie Anthony?
Deputy: Yes I was
(DB): When were you first called to assist in the investigation?
Deputy: I have to look back at my supplemental report.
(Drane-Burdick provided the deputy with his supplemental report)
He keeps looking thru his notes, but doesn't seem to be finding the date of his first involvement.  Drane-Burdick shows him where the date is on his report)
Deputy: 7/17/2008
(DB): Where at
Deputy: Main operations, at 2500 West Colonial, the forensics bay
(DB): What time did you respond to that location?
Deputy: 15:31 hours
(DB): Just before 4pm?
Deputy: Yes Ma'am
(DB):  Do you have to do any preparations with Gerus to prepare whatever request is to be made of him?
Deputy: For the search, I use a collar as an indicator and then gave him a command
(DB): How is the collar an indicator?
Deputy: The indicator, it's just a change of, like if I put on a harness on him, he'll come up from the center of his back, and he knows it's for tracking.  If I put a color on him, it's for looking for human remains, he knows what he's doing
(DB): Based on his training
Deputy: Correct
(DB): Are you given any information about the potential impending case?
Deputy: Nothing but general information that I recall, I went to the Forensics Bay where CSI told me they wanted me to look at.
(DB): You've been involved in working a cadaver dog since 2003
Deputy: Correct
(DB): So, at that point in 2008, you had 5 years of a lot of different experience, working with training aids of human origin?
Deputy: Yes, multiple scenarios
(DB): Would you say that, having had exposure to those training aids, you had an opportunity yourself to detect the odor of human remains
Deputy: Yes, definitely I can detect it
(DB): When you arrived at the operations center, can you smell what you would say was the odor of human remains?
Deputy: At the facility itself, prior to moving the vehicle out of there? It was pretty strong at the bay, yes ma'am.
(DB): You go into this facility with Gerus, or is he somewhere else?
Deputy: He's in the vehicle waiting
(DB):why is that
Deputy: Um, I went in to find out what exactly they wanted, I didn't know much about the case. I went in there to find out what they wanted. And that's when I discovered the vehicle was still in the base. And I asked them to move the vehicle outside.
(DB): Why was that?
Deputy: Because in the forensics bay, there are other trash can, biohazard trash cans where the unit that picks up our biohazard trash come and pickup. It's housed in the same warehouse, on the other side of the bay.
(DB): So where did you ask the individuals present to move the car?
Deputy: I asked them to move the vehicle from the garage, the base, and put it outside in the parking lot
(DB): How was that to facilitate or improve Gerus' search?
Deputy: To put it in the air, to remove it from the other biohazards that were in there, um, which are also blood and other evidentiary stuff that are in the base, and  put it in a clear area

Deputy: I would move the dog around the vehicle in a clockwise area. He first indicated in the rear of the vehicle. I asked the detective to open the driver's door
(DB): And what was Gerus' response when the driver's door was opened?
Deputy: He dove into the car, in between the driver's seat and the backseat, jumped back in there in the backseat, trying to get into that area. Like I indicated, I continued to move, so to not create a false positive.  I continued to move, he came back out working the source. I indicated for the tech to open the trunk. Continued down the driver's side to the trunk area, when we turned down side of the rear of the trunk, the trunk was opened, Gerus jumped into the trunk.
(DB): His whole body?
Deputy: No, front end, stuck his head in there and of course, I was overwhelmed at that point because the same thing, I'm hitting it the same time he is.  I move around, continue to walk. Gerus comes out of the trunk with his front paws, comes out of his trunk by the front rear passenger tail light bumper area and gives me a final trained alert, he goes in a downed position.

(Casey, the entire time, watches the deputy testify about his K9 dog, watching with those evil dark eyes that she has, with no emotion whatsoever).

Drane-Burdick: Do you then leave the forensics bay area, or the parking lot outside the forensics bay area?
Deputy: Yes.  I lifted the dog back up, and I left the area.

Drane-Burdick: Were you asked to go to another location that same day or subsequent day?
Deputy: Yes, same day I believe it was the next day; I'm not sure, the Hopespring address
(DB): what request was made of you at the Hopespring residence
Deputy: they asked me to come do a sweep of the backyard. They had a concern in a couple areas in the backyard, and low area, that the father was not familiar with.
JOSE Objected to strike the question
Judge: Strike which question?
Previous question (about the father)
Judge: Sustained, That portion of the answer will be stricken, jurors will be asked to disregard that portion of the statement.
Drane-Burdick: Yes sir.

Drane-Burdick: You were asked to go to Hopespring residence to check out some areas that the crime scene techs wanted you to look at.
Deputy: Those detectives, yes ma'am.
(DB): The detectives
Deputy:  Some of the areas of concern within the backyard
(DB):  So you went there with Gerus.
Deputy: Yes
(DB): Did you do any sort of investigation in the backyard prior to deploying Gerus in that search area?
Deputy: Yes, the detectives had a particular area that they wanted to look at,um, because they had been informed that...
(DB): Um, without giving us the Heresay information... there were areas in the backyard that they wanted you to search
Deputy: Of concern, yes
(DB): So, in order to facilitate that, you came with Gerus
Deputy: I went and retrieved Gerus from the patrol vehicle and conducted a search of the yard
(DB):  How was that search conducted?
Deputy: Off-lead
(DB): Was everyone removed from the backyard
Deputy: The majority of them. I believe that corporal Cardin, which was my supervisor was with me. I'm not certain if one of the detectives were still with me, I don't believe that he was
(DB):  So what commands do you give Gerus regarding the search of the backyard at Hopespring
Deputy: His command to find human remains were Find Fred.  His indicator was his collar. I put his collar on, and gave him his command of Find Fred and he goes to work.

(DB): And you say that he's off lead, so you're not having him sweep in any direction?
Deputy:  No, since it's a fenced in yard, I allowed him a free search and then I bring him back in to search areas of concern. I  entered the yard from the Northwest corner, and started in an Eastern direction, it's when I kicked him off lead and let him search the area.  We went past a couple of sheds...
(DB):  Can you tell the members of the jury where the trained final alert occurred. (A photo of the Anthony's backyard was shown to the jury. The deputy outlined that the dog alerted in front of Caylee's playhouse.
Deputy: The kid's playhouse, the kids' sandbox, the picnic area was where his last alert was.
(DB): Did you remove Gerus from the backyard at that time?
Deputy: Yes I did
(DB): Did you make a suggestion to the detectives there that another cadaver dog come and check that area?
Deputy: Yes I did
(DB): Would that be Bones?
Deputy: That would be Bones.
(DB): What information, if any do you impart to Bone's handler when she arrives?
Deputy: Generally, I just give them general information. Here's the area of concern, here's where I would like you to do , aside from what my dog has done. Like I said, we take great means to prevent false alerts.  You don't tell them what your dog did. You just say, 'Here's the backyard.  I would like you to search it and see if you get any indications.  I've probed these areas, stuck holes in the ground and no one's been back for this timeframe, General information that I give them.
(DB):  Did Bones arrive?
Deputy: Bones did arrive
(DB): How long after you conducted the search with Gerus did Bones arrive?
Deputy: I don't recall, it was a little bit because she was coming from Osceola County.
(DB): Were you present during any search that Bones did?
Deputy: Yes I was
(DB): You didn't run the search with Bones, someone else did, correct?
Deputy: Correct. He'd been with the other handler for a few years at that point.

(DB): That's all I have for now


Looking at Caylee's playhouse, Jose asked the deputy again where the dog hit in front of the playhouse.  Jose then outlined an area a side area to the playhouse.

Jose: Now you've testified that your dog has some training with residual odor
Deputy: He's been trained with residual odor, yes sir.
Jose: And you gave three examples of that?
Deputy: I believe two examples.
Jose: Two examples. One was after ten hours
Deputy: One was after ten hours, yes sir.
Jose: And what was the other one after how many hours?
Deputy: After ten days.
Jose: Ten days.
Deputy: Twenty four times ten, 240
Jose: You certainly have never had a situation where you've had to either train on a, or have a real world example of thirty days
Deputy: A real world find after 30 days?
Jose:  Find or training after 30 days?
Deputy: Find, yes I have had after 30 days
Jose: That's not my question, on residual odor
Deputy pauses, then says:  I'm trying to understand your question

(Baez, getting excited now, continues, stuttering a bit)

Baez: Alright, let let let me start from the beginning so that maybe I, maybe losing the jury too
Deputy: Yes
Jose: Ok, Residual odor, when we're talking about that, we're talking about POSSIBLY something at one time being somewhere and no longer being there
Deputy: Correct
Jose: And that could be decomp fluid that's still there
Deputy: Correct
Jose: Or it could be a scent that might still b-, still be there
Deputy: Correct
Jose: Or it could not be there at all, it could be a false alert?
Deputy: What is the question there? before I agree to it?
Baez laughs: Well is that correct? I mean when you run into a situation, or you're trying to either training or you're ha.. or you're deploying your dog and nothing in there that you can see. It could be either decomp fluid that's there.  (pause)
Baez: Is that correct?
Deputy: Yes sir, I'm sorry, it could be decomp fluid
Jose: Uhh, no problem. The odor that's still there
Deputy: The smell, yes
Baez: Or it could be nothing there, which means it's a false alert
Deputy: It could be nothing there.
Baez: There are such things as false alerts
Deputy: Yes
Jose: Dogs are not infallible.
Deputy: They're not perfect, no. Like humans.
Jose: So it's one of those three things, correct?
(Deputy looks confused, but says): Correct
Jose: So unless you find something that indicates that a human body was there, you don't know which of the three it could be
Deputy: Unless I visually know it, or doctor finds something there, that's correct.

Jose: You had the car that you knew had to do with this case
Deputy: Vehicle in question. Didn't know about the case
Jose: But you knew it was the vehicle in question
Deputy: Absolutely
Jose: Now, you testified that you quickly went to the first vehicle?
Deputy: I testified that I swept the first vehicle.
Jose: Now I saw that you had a video of one of your finds. Did you videotape this find?
Deputy: No I did not
Jose: Did you not have a video camera available?
Deputy: I'm sure there was one available.
Jose: But, being that you knew which car there was, you didn't think it was advantageous to the jury, or anyone, to see if you were giving any queues that you were giving off the dog
Deputy: (Looking at the jury, he answered) If we could have predicted where we are today, it would have been videotaped it, but it's not a common practice to videotape your searches. Not at all.

Jose swaggers over to Casey at the defense table, gets a book, and comes back all cocky and says to the deputy: You are familiar with this book, are you not? (He shows a book to the deputy)
Deputy: Yes sir
Jose: And this is your handbook
Deputy: It's not my handbook, no sir.
Jose: It's the one that you're familiar with and you find authoritative, do you not?
Deputy: Yes, but big difference saying that it's my handbook
Jose: Alright, I understand. In fact, this is written by Andy Rednick
Deputy: Yes sir
Jose: The person you trained with in Sarasota
Deputy: In '05 and '06, Yes sir
Jose: And are you familiar with that with the section that recommends that you videotape the lineup
Deputy: It's a recommendation that he offers, yes sir
Jose: And you're familiear with the portion that says, this videotape that the court may allow the videotape may be shown in court for the jury
Deputy: Yes sir
Jose: And that is really more authoritative than, well I'm sorry, I don't want to be argumentative, but, let me ask you this. You had a situation where you knew there was no body in that car
Deputy: I believe it was just a vehicle in question, I was told
Jose: Forensics wouldn't have had you come out if they had already, if they had a body in the car
Deputy: Or if they had removed a body from the car, I have done those sweeps before where a body has been removed from the trunk and I have done that sweep
Jose: Yeah, but my point is you knew there was no body in the car
Deputy: At that time, correct
Jose: So, whatever you did would be scrutinized later, at a later time, would it not?
Deputy: That's possible
Jose: And despite all of that, you chose not to videotape these scent lineup
Deputy: I don't have anything in my regulations or policies that refer that I have to do those things
Jose: Now,
Deputy: So I did not do that
Jose: Now, what you submitted in this case were training logs, right.
Deputy: Correct
Jose: And these training logs are things that you do?
Deputy: That I do?
Jose: Yes, You train your dog
Deputy: Yes
Jose: And you train your dog a couple times per month
Deputy: Correct

Jose: And when you train your dog, it's just you and the dog other than the times you are being observed
Deputy: Sometimes there are other people there.
(Jose then stated something about the deputy being the only one who reviews his own dog)
Deputy: Yes, and then he's evaluated quarterly like I referred to
Jose: So, a couple times per year, someone else is here when you're training your dog
Deputy: It's possible
Jose: And in all of those logs, it's really just an indication of your work
Deputy: It's an indication of the dog and my work as a team
Jose: Right, you guys are a team, it's an indication of your work right? The dog doesn't get a paycheck, doesn't reap any benefits from it. It's an indication of your work
Deputy: It's an indication of our work as a team
Jose: And you put in, when you train your dog, it is not blind testing is it not?
Deputy: If I'm train my dog, it's not blind testing, correct.
Jose: And for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what blind testing means, is that you know where the target is of the search
Deputy: I know where it is, yes sir, if I lay it out, but there are also unknown finds
Jose: Understood. And, the times that you're evaluated, unless it's indicated, those are also not blind testing, are they?
Deputy: Unless it's indicated, that it's an unknown find, that's correct.  The real world finds would be unknown finds to everybody
Jose: Now, part of what the dog gets for a reward is praise
Deputy: Handler praise, yes
Jose: And the dog wants to please
Deputy: Absolutely
Jost: And that's its motivation when it finds something. Part of the motivation
Deputy: Part of the motivation. It's their drive
Jose: Now, going back to the search of the home. You were called, after your alert, full trained alert in the backyard, CSI was called out
Deputy: Brewer was called out and then CSI was called out
Jose: And then they began to dig and search for remains in the backyard
Deputy: Like I've said many times before, it's not that they dug, it appears that they scraped the surface
they went looking
Jose: And they didn't find anything, and they asked you to come out, and you came out, and your dog didn't alert to anything when you went back, correct?
Deputy: The next day, after they scraped the surface and moved the area, I did not get any alerts. (He went on to explain that since it was a surface find, the fact that people moved the dirt around, that was probably why the dog didn't find anything the next day).

Jose: Now, you issued a police report when you searched the vehicle, correct
Deputy: Correct
Jose: And that's the vehicle that was shown
Deputy: Correct
Jose: And on one day you had an alert and the next day you did not, you did not report that, did you?
Deputy: That's correct

Jose: In your logs, all of your logs, you have no report of, in '06 the five calls that you had, where there was no alert

Deputy: That there is no training log?

Jose: No, that you don't have any reports, what you like to call real life searches. You have no police reports for those searches, correct?
Deputy: I have reports for those
Jose: For the non-alerts?
Deputy: No, but (and the deputy explained again why the dog probably didn't hit on anything after the earth had been scraped, moved around in the backyard).

Jose: No reports on the nine searches with no alerts.

Jose: Then in '08, you had three alerts, which I presume are from this case.
Deputy: Correct, from your clients' car and the backyard

Jose: Do you recall giving a deposition in this case in November 29th in this case.
Deputy: Yes I do
Jose: Do you remember being placed under oath, I was present, Ms. Drane-Burdick was present.
See Page 81, lines 23-25. Do you recall being asked the question: He didn't give any alerts at all. Your response being "no sir, well yes he showed some interest, change of behavior, blah blah blah. Did he give me his final alert", do you remember giving that statement?

Deputy: Yes I do, and that's what I was just referring to and testifying to. Was he alerting, yes...

Jose interrupts: I don't have any impending questions, SIR...

Drane-Burdick: Objection (let him answer)
Judge: Let him answer

Deputy: Thank you sir. what I was saying, is I testified in deposition the dog was alerting to it, but he wasn't giving me a final alert. like I explained to earlier. He was trying to get to the source. I didn't want him to get to the source. We were looking for items that they hadn't found, I believe they were really small bones, I don't remember if it was a toe or a finger, or what it was, but they knew what they were missing.  So I didn't want him to get there. So is that what I was referring to, absolutely. He didn't give me a final trained alert, because I didn't allow him to do that. I kept moving him.

Jose: You were called to find human remains, were you not sir?
Deputy: A couple of missing bones, a couple of pieces of missing bones
Jose: You were called out there to find human remains!

Jose: Would you consider that human remains?
Deputy: Bones, yes
Jose: You didn't find human remains?
Deputy: They'd been recovered. I didn't find any, no sir
Jose: Neither did your dog
Deputy: No sir
Jose: And your dog did not give a final trained alert anywhere on Suburban Drive
Deputy: Correct, I would not allow him to give me a final trained alert or go to where the body had been discovered.
Jose: You wouldn't allow him to help you find human remains
Deputy: I would not allow him to go to where the body was recovered. They had how many forensics people at that source filtering it. I knew if they had gone through it, as well as they had done this whole area. It wasn't there. They'd already sifted through there. I wanted him to find what had been removed, so that we could have a complete body.
Jose: And he didn't find ...
Deputy: He didn't find two three missing bones
Jose: You don't know how many missing bones there are
Deputy: No sir. I remember it was a very minute number
Jose: You don't find yourself qualified to testify to that fact, do you
Deputy: They told me that there were a couple bones missing
Jose: You don't, my question to you is, you don't know exactly how many there were
Deputy: Can I tell you that there were ten or three, no, but they told me there was a very small number

Linda Drane-Burdick redirected the deputy to testify that video-taping of K9 searches are not normally done.    Deputy Forgery testified that he's conducted over three thousand searches, few have been videotaped.  As he was testifying about why videotaping is not normally done, Jose objected.

Jose: Calls for speculation (Overruled)

Deputy: Whatever the dog was alerting to was on the surface, so when it was scraped and moved or diminished where the dog wouldn't find it, it was gone at that point. But if there was something that was on the surface that was scraped, I clearly believe that is what happened and why we didn't find anything the next day.

Drane-Burdick asked if the dog would alert to cheese, chicken, trash, the deputies answer was no.


Jose: And when trying to interpret what a dog is doing and saying, it's speculation is it not?
Deputy: Speculation on my training experience with my dog, absolutely, that's my job
Jose: And that would include for all searches where there are not remains found
Deputy: If there was an alert is what you're asking me?
Jose: Correct
Deputy: In every single time he's had an alert, besides this case, I've had a find

(not liking that answer, Jose switched mindset): What we're talking about is this case, let's talk about this case. In a situation where you have a search and you don't have remains and you don't have evidence of remains, you're just speculating as to what occurred.
Deputy: As to what had taken place in the backyard, correct. I didn't know
Jose: And in the car as well
Deputy: Well I believe the doctor's testified about that
Jose: You can't testify as to what other people testified to.  I'm asking you about you. You don't know.
Deputy: I didn't see anything in the trunk, I SMELLED it, clear as day.
Jose: My question is to you sir, is you don't know, do you?
Deputy: I know what I smelled in the car, cuz you're jumping from the car to the backyard to the car...

(Jose jumps in as the deputy is finishing, the judge interrupts asking Jose to let the witness answer.  However, Jose didn't and then asked his followup question)

Jose: Let me make myself clear, when it relates to your dog alerting to where no remains are found, you are speculating that remains were there, or that one of the three examples you've already testified to.

Drane-Burdick: OBJECTION
Jose: As it relates to your searches where there are no remains found, it could be there were never remains there, or there is residual odor.
Deputy: To clarify the backyard, yes. To clarify the car,  clear as day I smelled it.
Jose: You haven't been called out to smell things without your dog, have you?
Deputy: No,  I've been present with my dog. I've also, prior to being a K9 handler, I worked the road and worked many deceased people calls, dead unattended.
Jose: They have not called you out instead of the dog.
Deputy: No they have not, no sir.

End of Jose's cross-examination.



No comments:

Post a Comment