Looks like the last post about this was 7 days ago, but there’s been a new panorama programme since then that seems to have changed some minds, so I hope this post is okay.
I don’t know what to think myself – the expert panel seemed to have a really solid, evidence-backed argument that she’d been set up, yet now it looks like at least some of their claims were inaccurate if not impossible.
Right now I’m wondering if this is a sort of OJ Simpson situation, where she did in fact do at least some of what she’s accused of, but there is also a lot of corruption and bad actors that scuff up other parts of the case. Like she’s a scapegoat, but only because she happened to be doing the things she did at the same time other failings were being made at the hospital if that makes sense?
Either way, one thing I’m certain of is that there needs to be a retrial. But until then, really interested in what others think about this?