The Caddy Review

Caddy Review - an update following the judgement in Reed

There has been considerable misunderstanding following our response on this website to the Caddy Review. In particular, suggestions that we had questioned the integrity of the Review Team.

For the avoidance of doubt;

• At no point in that response did we ever question the integrity of the Review Team. We were specifically concerned with the process of the review which focussed on the providers and promoters of the LCN technique.

• We stated that, “The Review team did not consult anyone who had expressed contrary opinion on the merits of the FSS Ltd’s LTDNA technique and spoke only to the organisations selling the technique and to the police as ‘customers’.” We accept that this was, strictly speaking, inaccurate inasmuch as Professor Jamieson had received a personal, unheaded, letter from Professor Caddy requesting his objections to the LCN technique. Professor Jamieson responded by directing Professor Caddy to the public sources of those views and explaining the restrictions placed upon him regarding further disclosure. Professor Caddy subsequently telephoned Professor Jamieson explaining the composition of the Review Team and the involvement of the Forensic Regulator. Professor Jamieson took no further action as, in his recollection, he was awaiting a formal letter from Professor Caddy. This is not Professor Caddy’s recollection. Professor Jamieson does not dispute that his recollection may be wrong, nor does he accuse Professor Caddy of any lack of faith or integrity; he has stated this publicly in Court. Professor Jamieson took no further action to supply his views to the Review. (Although the fact that the Review had access to the views of Professor Jamieson (and Prof Krane) is contained in the Review’s statement regarding the Omagh Bombing trial, “The validation [of LCN] was severely criticised by the defence in terms of reproducibility, lack of quantification, interpretation and the establishment of guidelines.”)

  NEXT PAGE>>