If I were convinced of Lucy Letby’s guilt, I would have no problem with her punishment. She would deserve everything she got – fifteen life sentences – for her cold-hearted crimes against small, defenseless babies and the immense suffering inflicted on their parents.
But like a growing number of people – eminent doctors, nurses, scientists, statisticians, legal experts, politicians and campaigning journalists like my colleague Peter Hitchens – I have serious doubts about the safety of Letby’s conviction on all charges.
Now those doubts are growing stronger after lawyer Mark McDonald, head of Letby’s new legal team, announced that, in an unprecedented move, he had asked the Court of Appeal to review all her convictions.
He said he had “significant” new evidence that the convictions were not safe because the prosecution’s star witness, Dr Dewi Evans, had “markedly changed his mind” about the mechanism of death in three of the seven babies – babies C, I and P. – murdered in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
According to McDonald, he was not a ‘reliable witness’. (For his part, Dr. Evans believes that changing his mind would have had little effect on the verdict.)
Mr McDonald also revealed that Dr. Evans had written another report on Baby C, which was now with the Letby Crown Prosecution Service. Despite numerous requests, they refused to share the report.
He added that during the original trial the judge questioned the defense about Dr. Evans had ignored and rejected requests to remove him from the case.
Last month I personally reviewed the ‘reliability’ of Dr. on these pages. Evan questioned. At the time, I was the only person (as far as I know) in the mainstream media to have his role as an expert witness questioned, although this has been an ongoing debate in various online legal and medical forums for some time.
Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby has been sentenced to stay in prison until she dies – but questions are mounting about the safety of her conviction
Dr. Dewi Evans rejected the term ‘expert witness’, preferring to be described as an ‘independent medical witness’
People asked me: why did I do it? Why would I stick my neck out and question a doctor with a 30 year track record in clinical negligence and child protection in criminal and civil cases, first arrested by Cheshire Police in the Letby case? appointed and subsequently as an expert witness by the Crown Prosecution? Employ?
My answer was that Dr. Evans, according to my research and close reading of the court transcripts of the 2023 trial, was not an expert. He even admitted it when questioned by the defense.
He rejected the term ‘expert witness’, preferring to be described as an ‘independent medical witness’ whose opinion was ‘based on being a doctor’.
He agreed that he had never worked exclusively in neonatology (the care of premature and newborn babies). Until 2009, this 74-year-old grandfather was a pediatrician at Singleton Hospital in Swansea, with a specialty in endocrinology and pediatric diabetes.
Dr. Evans has since told the Mail that his ‘clinical’ [hands-on] The neonatal practice ran from the mid-1970s until 2007.’ The ‘expert witness’ in the Letby case had not been responsible for the care of a newborn for sixteen years.
It’s no wonder he didn’t recognize a monitor – handed to him during the trial – that was used to track a baby’s vital signs.
I wouldn’t have done that either, based on my experience as a nurse on a neonatal unit in Liverpool in the 1980s. You simply cannot compare the care given to a newborn back then with what technology and improved knowledge have made possible today.
So since Dr. Evans was not a specialist neonatologist with experience in a 21st century neonatal unit, I asked whether he was the best choice as a key witness for the prosecution in these clinically complex cases?
He certainly made the most of his 15 minutes of fame in the aftermath of the Letby trial, regularly appearing on TV, radio and podcasts to talk about the case. On the other hand, he has a business to promote.
Since retiring 15 years ago, he has expanded his role as an “expert witness” through his company, Dewi Evans Pediatric Consulting.
It is fair to say that his contributions have not been without controversy.
As my colleague Glen Owen recently reported in The Mail on Sunday, in another case in 2022, a judge described Dr. Evans as ‘worthless’ and said he had made ‘no effort to give a balanced judgement’. (Dr. Evans says he stands by his report in this case).
Regarding the Letby case, Dr. Evans actively sought a role when he heard about the high number of infant deaths at Chester hospital. He wrote to a contact at the National Crime Agency saying it was ‘my kind of case’. Letby’s attorney at trial even accused him of “cheering for the job,” according to the transcripts.
He spent seven (presumably lucrative) years working for Cheshire Police, reviewing the clinical notes of all 30 babies who died or had unexplained collapses in the department where Lucy Letby worked, before being appointed by the CPS.
At the very least, I would argue that Dr. Dewi Evans questions the role of expert witnesses in our legal system, and that we need to examine how they are appointed and reform the practice if necessary.
There are other questions that need to be answered. In July, 24 real (in my opinion) experts from various disciplines signed a private letter to Health Minister Wes Streeting and Justice Minister Shabana Mahmood expressing concern about “possible negligence deaths believed to be murders” at the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
That brings me to Dr. Richard Taylor, a neonatologist and one of more than fifty experts who are now re-examining the plaintiff’s case – pro bono.
At Monday’s press conference, he spoke about Baby O, one of the babies Letby was convicted of murdering. After reviewing all available data, the team concluded that the child died following a series of medical errors, including a needle accidentally inserted into the baby’s liver, causing bleeding that the staff who tried to resuscitate him failed to revive. was informed.
With each passing month, new concerns are raised about the process. I believe Lucy Letby, now 34, is innocent.
Justice is demanding that she be given another chance to prove it – and that certainly starts with a proper investigation of the prosecution’s main witness.