Does anyone else think that the Roger Wilkes interviews, as good as they were, were ultimately an opportunity lost? Personally, I think he was too deferential, which is understandable when you consider the series of interviews must have represented something of a coup, and he was therefore probably eager not to offend anyone.
Thus, When Dolly Atkinson speaks vaguely about the blood he doesn't press her for more details, i.e. in order to ascertain if her recollection wss the same as Parkes'. Nor does he ask any of the interviewees how they could be so certain of the facts after almost half a century. In fact, he doesn't even ask Dolly Atkinson how she first heard of the account or who from-this is important because we have to consider the possibility of a "Chinese whispers situation. He doesn't even ask when she first heard the story, assuming she even remembered. I mean, it could have been days or even weeks after the event.
And without any sense of irony he states that "of course" they would have come forward had the appeal been rejected, without bothering to question why they failed to come forward before or during the trial or, indeed, at the tone of the appeal.