Good point Tim,

I too have been approached by TV company for similar input. I also explained the science and I too was shunted to one side and never heard from them again. Crap does make good TV, it sells and at the end of the day thats what these TV people are doing. There must be a market for it because they keep making it!!!

Having said that, I would like to point out quite openly, that the research I am involved with is NOT for sale. I have no intention of making money, or fame, out of it. I am merely trying to gather information. Eventually, if we all do our jobs right, the TV company can come back to us in years to come and ask us to discuss how we kicked Pat's "claptrap" off the scene.

I make no apologies for looking at this subject. I believe that whilst the act of SHC does not exist there are some "stories" out there that could be discussed as to why certain calls were or were not made and it is this that I want to concentrate on. Not the actual act itself. Hence the need for documented cases, the older the better.

Rest assured colleagues that if this research was pushed by either money or fame, I would be the first to announce it. However, this information will form part of an educational package for under graduate students in forensic science. If you are involved in education you will know that there is no money in it and if you are interested in fame, then (apparently) only DNA will do! I have no intention of writing a book on the subject either !!!!!!!!

Gareth