There is so much misinformation being spread by conspiracy theorists about this case.
For example this was a level two unit. Aside from a minority of unwell babies pending transfer to another unit, this is predominantly not an intensive care environment. No extremely premature or extremely sick infants would remain admitted there for any length of time and it is a complete mischaracterisation to refer to babies at this unit as being on the brink of death. Prior to the events of 2015/2016 only 2-3 babies died at this unit each year.
The idea that these deaths were viewed as normal or expected at the time is false. Consultants at the time of the deaths immediately noted a cluster of unusual hard to explain deaths in which the infants did not respond normally to resuscitation. They held meetings about this within a month of the first 4 deaths in 2015. Not all of the babies had a post mortem and at least some of the babies had a post mortem resulting in a finding of cause of death "unascertained". So this was categorically not a case of looking at LL and then going back retrospectively to recategorise deaths as unusual or unexplained, as some have insinuated. This absolutely was a case of something very unusual happening and that being investigated - albeit in a manner which was undermined and delayed by a management team that did not want to acknowledge clinician's concerns.
There has been a conflation of total infant deaths which includes stillbirths, that have nothing to do with neonatal care let alone the neonatal unit or it's nursing staff, with deaths that took place on the neonatal unit under the purview of neonatal staff. This has led to the misrepresentation of the abrupt and dramatic increase in deaths at the unit as less significant than it actually was, and even the fasle claim that LL was not present for many unexplained excess deaths. The unit had 2 deaths in 2013, 3 deaths in 2014, 8 deaths in 2015, and 5 deaths in 2016 which all took place before LL suspension to administrative duties in July. She was present at every single death that occured in 2015 and 2016.
I totally agree that her notes are not a confession, but I also must correct the misconception that she wrote them under any kind of duress or following her arrest. I believe she told the court that she wrote them in 2016 when she was on administrative leave and before she was ever arrested (but aware of a police investigation taking place). Talking about her distress about the babies and saying "I killed them" I believe is less meaningful than her references to never having a family - which is an odd remark for an innocent woman to make. Why would she believe she would never have a family? To me it reads as someone who is aware the police investigation is going to lead directly to them. But I totally agree that as evidence goes it is supportive but weak.
The handover sheets are something she collected over a long period beginning prior to her suspension or arrest, or indeed any suspicion of her at all. In and of itself taking home this volume of confidential material is deeply bizarre, unprofessional and illegal. It doesn't prove her involvement in the deaths but it does undermine claims that she was an "ordinary" "professional" nurse who was behaving entirely normally prior to the deaths.
A lot of has been made about her supposed "normality" whereas I see a mother who when LL was arrested said "take me, I did it!" (Did what???) and behaved in a very unusual and unpleasant manner in court. An adult woman (LL) who kept a child like bedroom at her parents home filled with bizarre collections of confidential data related to her work, one handover sheet she put in her personal diary, a printed photograph of a condolence card. That's not normal, it's very strange. LL told manipulative lies from the very start of the court case re being arrested in her undergarments / pyjamas to try to elicit sympathy, apparently relying on an assumption she would be believed. Her testimony in court is riddled with convenient memory lapses. She was so traumatised by the clinical incidents her memory wasn't functioning yet she continued to aggressively request to work with the most unwell patients and take on as much overtime as she could? These things are very flimsy in terms of evidence - I don't believe they should or did substantially contribute to her guilty verdict but I think they do not support the narrative that she is a completely normal young woman.
Ultimately this case rested on expert witnesses independently reaching a consensus for multiple babies that they were harmed intentionally and the prosecution then went on to demonstrate that only LL had the means to do this. This was not a blanket statistical approach (as has been implied) of charging her for every single death or suspicious event she attended but a case by case evidence based approach carefully presented to the jury over a period of 10 months.
None of the concerned signatories are in position to be expert witnesses in this case. There is a reason that the experienced defence team could not produce an expert witness with a different opinion/explanation for the babies injuries and deaths, nor could they adequately undermine the expert testimony in cross examination. I think the most likely reason for this is because the conclusion of intentional harm is sound.
I think people are very concerned about this case largely because of the gross misrepresentation of the facts of the prosecution's case from certain sources which thrive on the publicity any controversy about this case generates.