In her evidence on 29 April and her letter on 20 May, Karen Kneller denied that the CCRC had attempted to water down the report in any way. Karen Kneller did not inform us in her evidence that one of the reasons the Henley report was delayed was that the CCRC had expressly requested changes to 44 minimise the impact of Henley’s findings and conclusions. These requests did not represent “additional information”, “typographical errors” or “factual issues”. In our view, it was entirely inappropriate to commission an independent review by a leading criminal lawyer and then to seek to suggest that the reviewer should alter their findings. We are disappointed that Karen Kneller’s letter on 20 May does not even acknowledge that asking Chris Henley KC to limit the breadth of his conclusions and remove potential “soundbites” was in any way problematic. (Conclusion, Paragraph 37)