We have had reason, in the past, to criticise the tendency of former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson to set up committees and commissions of enquiry as a method of defusing public anger, only to have his administration shelve the findings and recommendations. So there remains some scepticism on our part as to whether the commission set up by National Security Minister, Dr. Peter Phillips, to review the specifics of the Bob Woolmer investigations and the standards of professionalism employed by police investigators and medical personnel in the probe, will prove any more useful this time around. But, as we suggested earlier this week, the country needs an explanation for the unquestionably poor handling of the Woolmer case. Hopefully, this review can serve as a point of departure for implementing needed changes in the country's forensic facilities.

Mr. Justice Ian Forte has been asked to make a report within six weeks on the specifics of the case. On the surface, the things he is being asked to investigate bear much similarity to the general experiences of many Jamaicans - experiences which are well publicised and left unattended. But beyond the specifics of this case, there is no need to go over well traversed roads.

The problems plaguing the system have long been in the public domain - inadequate staffing, contamination of crime scenes and collected evidence, lack of proper facilities, and snubbing of calls for independent observation or reviews. The Government has more than enough information available to act in a speedy manner to effect changes. Excuses about not having enough resources are just that - excuses. We have seen, time and again, examples of the Government being able to find money to spend on projects of questionable utility. We count among them the periodic importation of expensive vehicles to run election campaigns.

In defending the conduct of the police during the course of the Woolmer investigation, Deputy Police Commissioner Mark Shields has said they had conducted a thorough, professional investigation throughout. He noted that had they not gone elsewhere for assistance in terms of getting second, third and fourth opinions from pathologists and seeking a review at an early stage, the police might have been in a different position today. Perhaps, and therein lies the rub. Few Jamaicans who have had concerns about the way investigations are carried out here - especially those involving controversial police killings - have access to third and fourth opinions, or can command the resources to have their cases reviewed.

As we have often made the point, organisations function best when proper systems are in place that do not depend entirely on the presence of any one individual. When things go awry, it is easier to retrace the steps to determine what fell out of line. That analogy is readily applicable in Jamaica's case with respect to the Woolmer foul-ups.

Had the concerns raised by 'ordinary Jamaicans' about the inadequacies of our forensic investigations and autopsies not been dismissed as mere carping or agitation by busybodies, there would be no need for another review of our forensic facilities and, presumably, for recommendations for improvement to be made. They could have been addressed a long time ago. But, better late than never.