With no hint of irony, Mr Smith has published yet another article rehashing the points he has made in all his other articles while complaining about the “noise” in the media. The article shifts between different standards and arguments. He argues that all that matters is the CCRC and the Court of Appeal, and that public opinion is just noise. So why add to it? Why not wait for the CCRC? He also emphasises the exceptionally high threshold for referrals and appeals, as though that threshold is not itself part of the debate. Even the Supreme Court has remarked on the problem. But setting that aside, why shouldn’t we be content with simply shifting public opinion? I’m not making an application to the CCRC. He also correctly distinguishes between innocence and an unsafe conviction, noting that innocent people can be lawfully convicted and have no grounds for appeal. But must public commentary follow that same standard? The CCRC is responsible for referring convictions, but that does not mean the rest of us have to preempt what it will say whenever we discuss the case. Taken to its logical extreme, this would mean that everyone in the country could be convinced of someone’s innocence yet happily go about their own lives while the British state destroys that person’s life in prison, all reassured that there are perfectly sound legal technicalities at play. We could stop that at any point yes, but what would that say about our justice system? It’s not my job to maintain public faith in the justice system. If it cannot convince people that it reached the right verdict through a fair process, that is a problem for the justice system to address. Near the start, he introduces the “two sides”, characterising those campaigning against the conviction as essentially operating on faith and arguing with an imagined group of “those who do not agree that Ms Letby is innocent”. As if those defending the conviction are passive participants. Basically bystanders making casual observation. There are people who believe she is guilty who log on every day of their lives to argue the point. Some operate multiple accounts. It’s such a rose-tinted view, as though people who spend their lives arguing about her guilt are all perfectly well-rounded. A heavily censored subreddit devoted to the topic, complete with weekly discussion threads, that’s entirely normal, is it? For me this was a particularly revealing article.