' 1. The only valid reason for repeating a piece of work is that there is evidence that renders its conclusions suspect. There is no mention of such evidence and it seems unlikely that there was any because the proposed research by Valerie Sinason and Dr Hale did not propose to use comparable data. Moreover my report, The Extent and Nature of Organised and Ritual Abuse, ( ISBN 0113217978 HMSO 1994 ) was extensively reviewed by the Research Department's peer review requirement. "Complaints" about conclusions are not evidence about the work, merely about the views of the complainers, and should not beconsidered in themselves as reasons for funding further research.'
'2. Ms Sinason's research is presented as though it were funded by the DoH in the normal way. It was not. It was not funded by the Research Section of the DoH (a fact that you omit to mention), there was no peer review of the proposal and neither of the applicants had research experience. I was told by Dr Hale in the summer of 1998 that the research report to the DoH was nearly finished. Now you deny you have it but refrain from mentioning that this means it is nearly 2 years overdue. What has happened? Given that public money has been involved I think a better explanation than was offered is due.
'Professor Jean La Fontaine, emeritus professor of anthropology, LSE