Great work on the podcast so far - one of the best investigative podcasts I have listened to, I've been highly impressed by the new details you are uncovering and by the level of detail, determination and compassion you are bringing to Joshua's case.
I have few questions about the scent dog tracking. You've relayed and it is reported in various articles that Joshua's scent was tracked, in one of the earlier dog searches, from Metten Court toward the main campus but that his scent was lost and the trail stopped near the bridge. Joshua returning to St Maurs or his car was ruled out, as stated by his family, based on this dog tracing. This seems to form a significant part of the supporting data for a theory that Joshua either went into swampy ground or water near this spot around the bridge or that he left from that area in a vehicle. However it is also reported that subsequent dog searches went from Metten Court to, among other campus locations, the Abbey. As Joshua walked from St Maurs to Metten Court wouldn't it be expected that his scent trail would lead between the two dorms, why would it stop near the bridge even if his return journey stopped there? Also, wouldn't it be expected for Joshua's scent to be found around the Abbey and other places on campus from his normal student and day-to-day activities.
It was also reported that search dogs got a hit for Chris Jenkin's scent around the Abbey, which I find really hard to factor into Joshua's case. There appeared to be some criticism of the initial dog search methodology and credentials from law enforcement as noted in the linked articles above. My questions:
- How are the dog searches viewed in terms of credibility?
- Given the seemingly conflicting reports, is there a more "definitive" account of the dog search results?
- To what extent are the dog searches underpinning the theory that Joshua may have left the area in a vehicle from near the bridge?
- Does the Chris Jenkin's trace on SJU campus indicate just a flawed search, or something more significant?