I wonder how many babies we're talking about? If there was a Freedom of Information request I'm surprised the Defence didn't give the exact numbers if they were confident this information would exonerate their client.
I don't think your getting the Point Steve, they found out that Lucy wasn't even on duty when many [admitted it doesn't say how many] the babies went downhill the fastest, this was found out by the Hospital's own Audit. One of the experts at the trial has now changed his mind about Lucy being responsible, so if one of the experts has changed his mind, how many Jury members would have changed their minds as well?
So Lucy's defense has always been their was wider issue's of the care of the babies at the Hospital, this could certainly back up her claim, could it not be a cover up by the Hospital and Lucy made into the scapegoat for the Hospital's failings, as someone pointed out, look at the Post Office scandal,
why blame the Post Office when you can blame the Post Masters? On this evidence, i think it's only fair she gets a new trial, it's the least she deserves.