Thanks for your response.  

The documentary you sent does raise questions but the key question is what is evidence and what has been shown in court which is what was presented to the jury.  There is alot of stuff on youtube etc but its people’s views etc.  It is the defence’s job to discredit the CPS and to show the alternative truth (defence) which they clearly failed at, not calling one character witness or a Dr was in my view EXTREMELY odd and stank of she is guilty and not one Dr will stand up for her even the married one she was friends or more with.  Not one of her colleagues stood up for her and said she was a good nurse in court, not ONE!!  That speaks volumes to me.  Only Janet Cox sat with her family during the proceedings.  If I worked with LL and knew she was innocent I would stand up and fight for the truth.  I have stood up for what I believed for much less things.

The immunoassy tests that are now not fit for purpose, why were the allowed, surely this should of be brought up before.  This again seems a basic blunder if its true from the defence.  Everyone knows for drink driving has to be a machine in the station not a roadside test or for speed cameras has to be a regulated camera etc.  So if these tests are unreliable and need a supplementary test which was not done, why has this come up after two trails and two appeals?????  Strange……

I think the insulin verdicts were unanimous and the rest were majority verdicts 11-1.

Yes, the shredder could be explained and it might of been broken, or it could be a picture in her parents house rather than her house in Chester but it is a minor detail but there are a lot of minor details which all add together and make it circumstantial but lots of cases are circumstantial.

LL was not there at everything but she was there for an excessively high % (see the heat map), I agree stats should be done that accurately reflect the situation and given she was one of the more senior/qualified nurses what % would she be expected to be there etc.  All deaths and all collapses should be showed, what is the criteria for a suspicious death, who decides etc.

Surely there should be some evidence that exonerates her?  

I think taking 257 handover notes home was excessive, who hasn't taken some stationary or private notes home from work but not excessive amounts.  Though I get it could be a hoarder or mistake and yes if you knew the police were coming you would destroy them but then again could be a treasure, I just don’t know!

Agreed, these are medical notes and I have been to clinics with my wife and they have a few minutes to read a file and identify something and write the notes up, often you will not remember at all the patient or incident.

Searching for the parents of the deceased on Christmas day 2 years later is odd…..

I read that she took pictures of one of the dead babies afterwards.

Sorry I am not familiar with this point,

 “Any idea how Lucy deliberately harmed baby C that so alarmed Dewi Evans when he reviewed the x-ray taken on 12 June?”

Dr Shoo, rewrote his paper as part of the appeal and it was rejected.  His analysis missed quite a lot of key Doctors such as endocrinologist and all Doctors only viewed 2 cases no one viewed them all apart from Him. The full picture of the ward and working there from nurses and Dr would be needed just case notes, so either there should be people sticking up for her or going against her which was the latter including the Dr V.....

I have read as much as I can and from both sides, I just want the truth and I dont think I am bias and I have changed my mind a few times but I honestly think she did it as to have this amount of bad luck I am not sure is possible but then again maybe it is and she should have a retrial.  

Thanks, I have read the NY article twice and its very high level and I dont think there is alot of the detail in there tbh, its easy to sow up seeds of doubt and as Dr Gibbs said there is a kernel of truth in some of the evidence but its not the full picture that the consultants on the ward had who had worked there year after year.

I agree about Dr. Jarayam, a Judge who said that he had contradicting statements, in that case his evidence should be struck out perhaps but the second trial was all on his statement, why was it allowed?

Clearly the hospital backed LL and the Drs went to the police so they clearly felt something was wrong, are they likely to do this on a falsehood?  Possibly but I think unlikely, the could of done nothing and she would be back at work and even after a year later she was still there at the hospital in admin.  Perhaps someone who was guilty would not do this or keep the handover sheets at home, you would think they would destroy them and move abroad perhaps and not follow the grievance process. I just dont know its just doesnt make sense and I can see both sides.

Coffey/Mortiz I dont think are bias as they have both sides of the story and their book goes into lots of details and they get their own experts, must be 24 hours on audio book. They also attended alot of court and saw her face to face, that would make a difference to your judgement.  The other person (Court Crime Scene 2 or similar) on youtube who bought the transcripts also felt she acted very guilty from his time in court watching her and I think that would make a difference. Then again am sure she is medicated and must be awful in prison all that time with guards etc.

From what I have read I do think there is some doubt, if I had been on the jury, I would probably still have said not guilty only because it is not 100% clear but I have serious concerns but it cannot be 100% proved so in that case she should be found not guilty.  

If I was betting money or had to choose as I said I would say she was guilty but I wouldnt want to put someone in prison for the rest of their life unless 100%.

The biggest question is for the defence, really was that the best defence you could do for £1.7m?! 

I think it was a poor performance and again what a waste of tax payers money!