DEATH OF JACK NICHOLAS - Trial, day 22

A dog behaviour specialist says the silence of farmer Jack Nicholas' dogs when he was shot four years ago suggests the killer was someone ``very close' to him.
The opinion was given yesterday by Palmerston North canine behaviour centre operator Paul Hutton, the 17th defence witness in the trial of murder-accused Haumoana man Murray Kenneth Foreman, in the High Court in Napier.
But it was challenged by Crown prosecutor Russell Collins, questioning whether people always agreed with Mr Hutton's theories, whether he had all the relevant evidence at his disposal, and suggesting he was only in court to say that ``one of the family' shot Mr Nicholas.
Foreman, 51, denies having anything to do with the killing of 71-year-old Mr Nicholas, who died after being hit by two .308 rounds outside his Kaweka Ranges foothills homestead about dawn on August 27, 2004.
The Crown alleges Foreman walked up the driveway towards the house, fired the shots, as well as a third, from a pole between the dog kennels and the garden gate where Mr Nicholas was felled, and fled back down the drive to his car. Two cartridges were found near the base of the pole.
Early in the trial, now in its seventh week, Mr Nicholas' wife Agnes said she heard three shots while in bed about 6.30am, but never heard any dogs barking, before or afterwards.
Assuming her husband was shooting rabbits, she dressed, showered and had breakfast before going outside, and finding him dead at the gate.
Mr Hutton said he started working in applied canine psychology with maltreated and abused dogs for the RSPCA in London 35 years ago and worked in related fields in Britain and New Zealand ever since.
Asked by Foreman's counsel to appear in the trial, he visited Makahu Farm where the shooting happened and read transcripts of the evidence of Mrs Nicholas, police officers and two defence witnesses, relating to the behaviour of the dogs.
He believed the only reasons the dogs would not have barked would have been they were distracted, unwell or ``knew and were familiar with' whoever they saw.
Ruling-out the first two, he concentrated on the ``familiarity level' and told defence counsel Bruce Squire QC it would have to be high.
The only reason he could see for the dogs not barking after the shots was the ``element of surprise' was not present, and they were ``expecting' the shots.
He believed the lack of barking meant the ``only option' was whoever was involved was ``very close, if not a family member'.
Mr Hutton said he also believed there were flaws in a police reconstruction almost a month after the shooting, and called it a ``bungle'.
In the reconstruction a police officer arrived before dawn, removed his footwear, walked in his socks up the drive to the pole, fired three shots and left, also without the dogs barking.
Mr Hutton said there had been other activity preceding the test which would have removed the elements of unfamiliarity and surprise.
Cross-examined by Mr Collins, Mr Hutton said that of evidence in the trial he relied only on the transcripts provided by the defence, and he did not consider a possibility the dogs did bark, but it was not recalled by Mrs Nicholas who would have been traumatised on that morning.
Asked by Mr Collins if the situation was that he could not understand how someone with 30 years of deerstalking experience could duck up that driveway undetected, Mr Hutton said that would be highly improbable.
The witness conceded that not everyone agreed with his theories on dog training. Proceeding