It goes against every dogs natural instinct to ignore the smell of blood on the way up the path. I've always owned dogs, if you ever walked a dog near where a dead animal lays, watch its reaction. Just try and get it to ignore it and keep walking. It would be easier to accept Mia ignoring this instinct if we weren't expected to believe the same scent drove her crazy and caused her to scrabble at the wall on the way back. I'd really like to hear a handler's opinion of this inconsistency/contradiction.
To me it leaves 2 options, none which look good for Mitchell.
1. Mia didn't detect the body the first time, so wouldn't have detected it on second passing - Luke lead her to the body.
2. Mia did find the body, so it's only logical she must also have alerted Luke to it upon first passing - Luke ignored this because discovering the body with the family looks less suspicious than discovering it alone and leading them to it.
A dog passing next to a dead animal is completely different. Who says the dog is smelling blood. Dogs are fascinated by other animals smells and add to that a lot of the time the dog thinks there's food there. Your right they refuse to leave it alone.
A dog out for a walk on the other side of a six foot wall, May have picked up on a smell it recognised, May not have. I doubt though it would try and leap the wall (for what reason)Then it's told to look for jodi, the dog has been trained so knows this command. It knows jodis smell so is then actively searching for her. It reacted on the way back down as confirmed by the search party (original statements). It's not the blood it smells its jodi and her clothes.
Who knows it may have smelt something and tugged on the lead on the way up the path, though , doubt it. Even if it did, there's a good chance it tugged half a dozen times between home and the path.
