Correspondence

First, its effect may be to put off people who might benefit from reading the book. I tend to take book reviews seriously: if someone whose judgement I respect intimates that a book has serious shortcomings, then I may well pass up reading it in favour of something else. This would probably have been my reaction to the review of 'Interpreting evidence' had I not just finished reading the book.

Second, the reviewer spends the first 50% of his discourse nitpicking and in the process misses the point of the book, which is to encourage people to think differently about forensic science. I found the style of the book readable and encouraging; the style of the review in places is disdainful, if not downright pompous. There is one crumb of encouragement. Although it is 'impossible to recommend it to any professional who is directly concerned with the criminal investigation and trial' the book is 'written with a refreshing enthusiasm which ... demands even the sceptical reader's attention'.

ERRATUM

We apologise for an error which occurred in Volume 36, number 1, page 3 1. The caption for Figure 3 should read as follows:

FIGURE 3 The two images compared are between a black and white security camera still photograph of the robber with a photograph of the suspect. A horizontal wipe is employed to show the shape of the ear of the robber compared with that of the suspect in figures (a) and (b). Similar wipes are employed to show the characteristic shape of the right eyebrow between suspect and robber.

Finally, we are told that the book should be re-written 'this time not in a hurry ... with text subject to critical scrutiny by a group of readers who are professionally and practically concerned with the problems the book purports to treat'. Well, excuse me, but I can't see how the book could possibly have been written in its present form without recourse to such people!

This letter is not intended to be a second review. Its purpose is to persuade those who may have been put off by the Science & Justice review from reading 'Interpreting evidence' to think again. Suffice it to say that I recommend the book to my colleagues and would make it required reading for any prospective court-going forensic scientist.

[I] Kind SS. Hamlet without the Prince. Science & Justice 1996; 36: 65-67

March 1995 Roger Davis Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory London SE1 7LP

Science & Justice 1996; 36(2): 129-13d