I defend baby killers like Lucy Letby

LUCY Letby’s conviction risks being thrown wide open after medical experts deemed evidence used to convict her “unsafe”. Last week, a panel of 14 neonatalogists told a press conference in London there’s no evidence of the nurse’s crimes. Top doctor Shoo Lee - whose academic paper was used to support the evidence against her in court - is also among those pushing for a retrial. But renowned lawyer Joseph Kotrie-Monson - who has been on defence teams in similar cases of baby murder - said those convinced of her innocence don’t seem to understand criminal law.

Image Credit: The Sun [a woman in a blue scrub has a name tag that says stella]

He claims there was so much more evidence used to convict her beyond the medical papers doctors say cast doubt on her guilt. Letby, 35, was jailed for life for murdering seven babies at Countess of Chester Hospital’s neo-natal unit - becoming one of the most prolific child killers in British history. She was also convicted of attempting to murder nine more infants following two trials, and is now wallowing in prison.

Image Credit: The Sun [a woman with blonde hair and blue eyes looks at the camera]

During the trial, heinous notes where Letby described herself as “evil” and guilty were laid bare - along with sick diary entries about the killings. Mr Kotrie-Monson said the lack of medical evidence to convict Letby is not necessarily unusual and does not indicate a miscarriage of justice. Lawyers for Letby revealed before last week's hearing that they have submitted an application to the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

Image Credit: The Sun [a blue sign for the countess of chester hospital]

But the Court of Appeal has previously dismissed two appeals for lack of new evidence. Mr Kotrie-Monson described the conference as “a little bit glitzy”, and “more American”, adding self-respecting lawyers will be “slightly alarmed” by the medical experts concluding the conviction is “unsafe”. “That betrays a complete lack of understanding,” he said. “That's beyond their expertise and it's beyond their remit.”.

Image Credit: The Sun [a group of people holding signs that say justice for lucy letby]

“People can be convicted of very serious offences without any medical evidence at all.”. Mr Kotrie-Monson said: “There was various evidence of, at the very least, extremely odd behaviours, very specific behaviours, perhaps even on occasion, ghoulish behaviours that were reported by witnesses and present in some of the actions of Lucy Letby.”. He referred to the materials obtained from her home, including her diary being marked with victims’ initials - on, for example, their dates of death and when conditions worsened.

Image Credit: The Sun [A woman in handcuffs being arrested by a police officer.]

He said just putting initials suggests the information was “only for her”. The lawyer also spoke about the medical documents she stole and kept under the bed, as well as bizarre notes claiming she was “evil” and guilty. “At the very least, this is behavior that would strike somebody as completely weird,” he said. He admitted Letby’s odd behaviour and the circumstantial evidence, detailed to the jury during her trial, is not necessarily enough individually to convict her.

Image Credit: The Sun [Woman sitting in a car.]

But “the jury is entitled to take account of all of her behavior” when coming to a verdict, he said. Each example is “not going to be enough to get a conviction”, he continued, adding: “There's a point at which they all mount up and a jury can make their own conclusions. They can infer guilt. “Am I saying that that means that that was the case here, and there was enough of that extraneous evidence to build that picture?.

Image Credit: The Sun [Screenshot of a police interview, showing a woman being interviewed while others sit at a table.]

“I'm just not in a position to say, I'm not the jury.”. Mr Kotrie-Monson said he was baffled by last week’s expert panel - who he deemed as not particularly “official” - claiming “only medical evidence matters”. “Bearing in mind that the defence had the opportunity to call medical evidence and didn't… but because we don't have evidence, in our view, that leads to a conclusion that these babies died unnaturally.”.

Image Credit: The Sun [Handwritten note from a hearing.]

He continued: “That isn't how criminal law works. One doesn't even need to prove the exact mechanism of death in order to prove murder. “Because if there's motive, if there's no confession and other behaviours, there are many cases where somebody can be convicted of murder even when there isn't a body.”. He said the Criminal Cases Review Commission will consider “all of those other aspects”, as well as medical evidence, and it “may well” reach the Court of Appeal and lead to a retrial.

Image Credit: The Sun [Handwritten note expressing distress and asking for help.]

He said the CCRC will “look at this very very carefully” but added the prospect of the convictions being quashed or even retrial granted is “something of a stretch”. “It’s not for me to answer, but it’s an uphill battle.”. “They they will not make an order for a retrial in a case this loaded, unless they really feel something went terribly wrong, not just with the medical evidence, but the jury reached a wrong conclusion regarding the evidence as a whole.”.