I followed the trial a little bit. But I think the main thing we should all realise is that none of us were on the jury and therefore do not know all the evidence presented in the case. From this thread there seems to be new evidence unearthed all the time and the CCRC should assess that to see if they feel the conviction is unsafe and should be reviewed.
As far as I can recall the main problem was that the death rate in the NICU was too high and babies that were stable were dying and the only common denominator was Lucy. Her obsession with the deaths, the families and her weirdness towards being present at the deaths pointed to some obsessive type motive which she seemed unable to explain.
My concern with the narrative since her conviction is that it is by nature biased and is not being tested in a court of law like the original convictions. So I am loath to take any commentary as “fact” or unbiased.
There have been unsafe convictions in the past and there will be in the future, but there seems to be a new trend of “citizen investigation via social media” for some cases and not others, such as Erin Patterson in Australia, Karen Reed in Boston and even Aisling Murphy and Tina Satchwell trials in Ireland. Everyone seems to have an opinion on the conviction and whether their trials had the right outcome or not but we should forget that we did not sit on the jury.