"The attorney general has already asked people with genuine evidence to present it to his office, but it seems that so far nobody has met the challenge.
The conspiracy theorists should put up or shut up. I doubt they'll do either."
Now I'm rather imagining that the attorney general has made his comment as to a sort of backstop. If he doesn't receive new evidence he might turn round and say: "no new evidence, therefore no new inquest". The AG is showing he might hoodwink people here and Robbins is trying to do the same thing. Of course neither myself or, I would guess, other people wanting the truth will have any additional evidence - how could I for instance? It's not up to people doubting the suicide verdict to bombard the AG's office it is the duty of the system to properly examine the existing evidence, something that the Hutton Inquiry manifestly failed to do.
The only answer now is a new inquest. At least then we would have evidence given under oath, the coroner could subpoena witnesses to attend and a decision arrived at by a jury rather than one individual. Also of course verdicts of either "suicide" or "murder" would have to be "beyond reasonable doubt". Where doubt does exist there is the option of an open verdict and I wouldn't be surprised if that were to be the result in a new inquest.
Robbins has produced a silly article - I hope readers see it for the nonsense that it is.