I think it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that trauma caused all the searchers first statements to claim the same thing and then to change in an identical fashion later.
Time for some rabbits is it not? - perhaps that's what the dog sensed in the woodland? There is absolutely no point in spouting out this repetitive claim - There was not a snifter in any of this search trios statement that gave cause to LM turning immediately to his left. LM lied plain and simple - the search party were never some distance passed this V break together. They were not even a couple of feet passed it together. They always maintained from the off until they took the stand - than upon arriving at this V break LM went into the woodland. And yes shock does go a long way to explaining, as to why at first they may have thought the dog alerted LM to the V, upon approaching it, rather than LM leading, instructing his dog. "seek" That once this shock had worn off, that fog had lifted a little - they realised exactly what the dog had actually been doing. Sniffing about and pulling to the undergrowth, standing up at the V. Following it's masters instructions?
However, rather than just show clearly what each member of this search party had said from the off - one can't though. What Ms Lean does instead is give another reason for Luke Mitchell turning left - Just on the off chance he was lying/ mistaken about where the dog was?
SL:
alternatively, that the others had continued down the path, he was a 14 year old boy, alone on the other side of the wall in woodland, so he was likely to travel in the same direction as the others for safety and security.
One thinks of everything? - therefore, if one wishes to claim that this search party lied from their first statement to evidence in court - that they made the whole thing up 'upon reaching this V, of AW being handed the lead, of seeing LM turn left, of then continuing down this path, of being shouted back to this V. I mean, if one is claiming that this search party all said, the dog led 'us' to Jodi, why did they not just say it was some distance passed this V from the off? - because they were telling the truth. They had absolutely no reason to lie. They said it how it was. - this repetitive (i'm guilty too of this just now?) They changed their minds? No they did not, did they. Not a smidgeon of LM's claims fit together. Of the Gino spot - I know, again! Why did he take the notion to introduce the woodland to the search? - This wee boy, who was following the direction of the search party for safety and security - there is those bells again! And of DF to JaJ, "If it had not been for Luke taking the notion to search this woodland, Jodi would have been left lying there?" That is Luke, not his dog?