|
-
The
Review states; “The approach adopted for this review
has been to visit the three laboratories that constitute
the main providers of forensic science services
to the CJS and to speak with personnel involved
with LTDNA analysis at both the bench and research
levels as well as the management of the laboratories.
Additionally, we have visited Harperley Hall (National
Policing Improvement Agency Training Centre) to
speak with the trainers of crime scene officers
involved in the recovery of DNA samples from crime
scenes. Furthermore, we have interviewed: a representative
of United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS)
who are involved in accrediting forensic science
laboratory processes, the Custodian of the National
DNA Database (NDNAD) and the person responsible
for forensic science support at the Metropolitan
Police. We have also participated in a forum with
senior officers of the Metropolitan police and
have corresponded with a representative number
of police forces.” This is a clear statement of
the ‘approach adopted’. There is no mention of
any other inquiry with known critics of the technique.
For example, Professor Krane, the other key defence
scientist in the Omagh Bombing trial, was not consulted.
Having considered the situation, we would now amend
the original Press Release by changing, “The Review
team did not consult anyone who had expressed contrary
opinion”, to, “The Review team did not formally
consult anyone who had expressed contrary opinion”.
NEXT PAGE>> |
The Caddy Review on LTDNA » Prepared as a consequence of the criticisms of the technique. Concludes that the 'science is robust'.
TFI Press Release in 2008 following publication of the Caddy Review » Our amendent was issued in February 2010.
Letter from Professor Jamieson to Professor Caddy »
Article in Barrister Magazine by Professor Jamieson and Dr Wheate on the Caddy Review»
Letter from America on Caddy Review »
|
