It has been pretty much continuously in the news for years now. There is an ongoing public inquiry which only stopped hearing oral evidence over the Christmas period last week - I saw headlines at least weekly about that. The timing of this stunt by her lawyer after that is presumably to keep her in the headlines.
There is no new evidence. The 'experts' are claiming that evidence should have been adduced at trial which was adduced at trial re postmortem injuries to one babies liver or whether AE arose through air introduced through the NG tube into the stomach or the nose. The evidence of injury to child O's liver was discussed by the pathologist on the stand and not queried by the defence on cross, and the fact Evans report AE to baby C CD have occurred by one of two mechanisms, at trial he thought it was more likely to be via the stomach and he has later said he is less sure of that is irrelevant. The prosecution did not have to prove cause of death, only that death was unnatural and five medical witnesses agreed Baby C did not die of natural caused. The defence did not produce any witnesses disputing that. Indeed their own expert witness, who they did not call, said he found Baby C's death hard to explain.
Which leaves you with a sum total of zilch. A barrister with a long history of seeking attention for representing the guilty (Ben Geen anyone?). A handful of doctors who cannot have seen the children's medical records only the evidence adduced at trial.
And bereaved families, families caring for seriously disabled children and the survivors themselves. If we wanted to care about anything here perhaps we could give them some thought.