In an already existing thread I posted an article about a search dog handler who was caught red handed planting bones and carpet fibers on a site being searched by law enforcement. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4508072/n...g-expert-guilty-faking-evidence/#.WKmBpX81yxk This article came to my attention this morning: ZAPATA JURY WON'T HEAR OF DOGS' SEARCH FOR REMAINS ED TRELEVEN Sep 1, 2007 The jury hearing the 1976 murder trial of Eugene Zapata next week won't hear anything about cadaver-sniffing dogs, a Dane County judge ruled Friday. The specially trained dogs, which were said to have caught whiffs of human remains in several places linked to Eugene Zapata, are no more reliable than "the flip of a coin," Circuit Judge Patrick Fiedler said in excluding testimony about the dogs during Zapata's month-long trial, which is scheduled to start on Tuesday. ... Testimony that the dogs indicated they smelled human remains at several of the sites, without evidence that any remains were actually found, would be too prejudicial to be heard by the jury, Fiedler said. Assistant District Attorney Robert Kaiser said the state will not immediately appeal the decision. Fiedler agreed with an analysis of the dogs' records by defense attorney Stephen Hurley that concluded that the dogs were incorrect 78 percent of the time for one dog, 71 percent for another and 62 percent for a third. He said they had to be right just over half of the time in order for him to consider allowing the testimony. "The state has failed to convince me that it's any more reliable than the flip of a coin," Fiedler said. http://host.madison.com/news/zapata...cle_60fc871a-aa00-507b-a45a-6fed227f52b1.html My own opinion? It would seem that something that fails more often than it succeeds is straying a bit far into 'pseudo-science' territory.