The Guardian used to be my favourite newspaper but after it developed an agenda, I went off it. This article is representative of the paper at its best.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024...nce-experts-question

There is clearly a significant body of expert opinion which calls into question the medical evidence of just two expert witnesses presented by the prosecution.

I don't see how a jury could possibly have reached guilty verdicts if these medical counterargunents had been presented. This growing body of expert opinion was also deemed not admissible at her appeal, because her defence could have called them at this stage.

So a woman will serve a whole life sentence for procedural reasons, so far as I can make out.

None of the above - for the challenged - is in any way a comment about her guilt or innocence.

If a case can't be decided "beyond reasonable" doubt a person is legally innocent; regardless of what they have or have not done.

This case really disturbs me..I have real reservations about her conviction.

The article is very interesting and seems to suggest that she didn't get the best defence. But why would she have written "I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough" and "I am evil I did this"?

Jo wrote:
The article is very interesting and seems to suggest that she didn't get the best defence. But why would she have written "I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough" and "I am evil I did this"?

They are disturbing entries from a clearly troubled woman. However, the entries may have been the product of a distressed woman questioning her own fitness to look after babies, lacking professional detachment, troubled and conflicted by the number of deaths in an understaffed and poorly managed unit.

Is this narrative "beyond reasonable doubt"? If not, this should not be enough to convict her.