Doctor rejects claims ‘he changed his mind’ over cause of death of Letby victims
A doctor has said claims he has changed his mind over the cause of death for three of Lucy Letby’s victims are “unsubstantiated” and “inaccurate”.
Retired consultant paediatrician Dr Dewi Evans responded to the assertions of Letby’s barrister Mark McDonald, who said the prosecution’s lead medical witness had altered his views on how the infants had died at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit.
Mr McDonald told reporters he was immediately seeking permission from the Court of Appeal to relook at her case on the grounds that Dr Evans is “not a reliable expert” and the former nurse’s convictions for murder and attempted murder are unsafe.
‘Inaccurate’
On Tuesday, Dr Evans said: “Mr Mark McDonald’s observations regarding my evidence is unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate.
“His method of presenting his information reflects clear prejudice and bias. I cannot recall any KC advocating on behalf of a client via a press conference, especially a case of such sensitivity. I find his style most unedifying, most unprofessional. It’s highly disrespectful to the families of babies murdered and harmed by Lucy Letby.
“The only place appropriate to deal with any potential appeal is the relevant Court. If required I would be pleased to give evidence in the usual way; on oath, subject to cross examination, and where my evidence is placed in the public domain. I would expect any other participant to agree to the same principles. Anything disclosed through any other source is, as Lady Thirlwall put it so eloquently, just “noise”.
“I note the 58 page 209 paragraph report from the three Appeal Court judges. They have provided a very thorough review of the evidence presented at her trial. They were supportive of my evidence. They supported the verdict of the Manchester Trial unreservedly. I am not in receipt of any information that indicates that the Appeal Court judges were mistaken.
This statement is prepared as an account of my factual input in relation to 3 particular babies. I have given numerous interviews to informed journalists and organisations over the last few months. I believe that I should now call a halt to more interviews, as one is simply reiterating the same items of information.
“I am mindful also of two ongoing events. Lady Thirlwall is continuing to hear evidence. I believe we owe her the courtesy and respect to complete the hearing and publish her report without the distraction of “noises off”. I’m also aware that Cheshire Police are continuing their investigation into further suspicious events from both the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital.
“I’m not involved with their investigation but understand that the CPS will reach a decision regarding future action some time in 2025. I believe we owe it to them also to complete their investigation without any distractions.
Whole-life orders
Letby, 34, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others, with two attempts on one of her victims, between June 2015 and June 2016.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Dr. Dewi Evans, a distinguished paediatrician, has been compensated by the prosecution for his advice and testimony, reportedly earning substantial fees for his expert contributions. The case against Lucy Letby heavily relies on expert witnesses. If equally distinguished experts, who are not being paid, disagree with Dr. Evans’s opinions, this undoubtedly introduces ‘reasonable doubt’ into the case. It is worth considering whether expert witnesses should be appointed by the court rather than by either side in a trial.
All the evidence should be put before the court. The whole common law adversarial system is archaic and unfit for purpose.
You’ve just summed up the fundamental failure of the legal system, where people are paid to prove the truth is not the truth, depending on which side they’re on.
The worst criminals in the country are very wealthy so are protected by the highest paid legal representatives. Both have the lowest ethics and morals to commit the crimes and then argue to evade justice.
This recurrently parroted idea that it is disrespectful to query a possible miscarriage of justice seems to have emanated from the president of the inquiry. It is absolute nonsense and a continuing expression of the inherent arrogance and reluctance of the English Legal System to face its mistakes and put them right. We still hear the convictions of wrongly imprisoned people being described as “unsafe”. We need to get away from euphemisms for judicial and juridical cockups and describe them for what they are. There appears to be significant concern that Lucy Letby did not have a fair trial. In… Read more »