AS this paper predicted in its editorial yesterday, Southampton coroner Keith Wiseman, below, has taken the opportunity to group together three immensely tragic tales involving the deaths of four small children to make a point.

Quite what his point is we cannot be absolutely certain.

Speaking at the conclusion of yesterday’s final hearing – into the death of three-month-old baby Nico Maynard – the coroner alluded to the fact all four of the children should not have been in the custody of the adults charged with their care and safety.

As all three inquests into the deaths of Nico, Blake Fowler and brothers Jayden and Bradley Adams had concluded with open verdicts from the coroner, this is more than a little unsatisfactory. As is Mr Wiseman’s refusal to elaborate on his comments when asked by this paper and the BBC to go a little further into the thinking behind his conclusions.

Did the coroner believe Southampton Social Services should have done more to protect the children? Was he echoing the words of the secret family courts where Judge Mr Justice Baker had expressed his belief that there was a significant possibility Shelly Adams had killed her two sons and, as reported elsewhere today, that the father of baby Nico, Hamid Baldelli had been responsible for the head injury that could have played a part in his death? We cannot know as Mr Wiseman has not taken the opportunity to further explain his thinking on these matters.

Nor did the coroner reveal his thoughts on the fact that in all three cases the Crown Prosecution Service had chosen not to charge anyone in relation to the children’s deaths, despite in the case of the Adams brothers an appeal from Hampshire Police to change their minds.

Whether the coroner had a view on why Serious Case Reviews involving the role of the police and social services have only just been started into the deaths of Blake, Jayden and Bradley two to three years after they died, again we are none the wiser.

None of this is really acceptable.

While this paper applauds the coroner for bringing into stark relief the fact so many young children have died in questionable circumstances in the city, and shining some light on the behind closed doors evidence and findings of the Family Courts into these matters, he leaves too much hanging in the air, far too many questions unanswered.

In summing-up his thoughts on these inquests and the evidence he has been privy to, Mr Wiseman could, and we would contend should, lay bare where his obvious deep concerns lie. As it is, having held us spellbound in his court for the last three days, he now hints at his true thoughts and fades into the background, leaving us to attempt to interpret his message.

He should know better.

Certainly the coroner should be certain that if his actions in grouping these sad tales together was intended to flush out those in various bodies who should have been looking out for these children but failed, then by leaving matters opaque he enables them to remain shadows, will-o-the-wisps who will never be brought into the daylight.

Already Southampton City Council hides behind the two ongoing Serious Case Reviews to refuse to explain their actions and by default whether the coroner’s comments are applicable.

We are promised full responses in the fullness of time. No doubt those responses will include the immortal phrase ‘lessons have been learned.’ Hopefully they will have been – but this paper fears they will not.

Let us be clear, however. The coroner has not let down Nico, Blake, Jayden and Bradley.

On reflection this paper agrees his was a brave attempt to shine a light into the Byzantine methods used to investigate how four very young boys led such appalling lives and came to die so young.

Others betrayed them.

This week we have seen the challenge the city faces to make certain they did not die in vain and, yes, lessons are truly learned.