If he were convinced of Lucy Letby’s guilt, he would have no qualms about her punishment. She would deserve everything she was given (15 life sentences) for her ruthless crimes against small, helpless babies and the immense suffering inflicted on their parents.
But like a growing number of people – doctors, nurses, scientists, statisticians, legal experts, politicians and eminent 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, who heads Letby’s new legal team, announced that, in an unprecedented move, he was asking the Court of Appeal to review all of his convictions.
He said he had “significant” new evidence that the convictions were unsafe 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: the babies C, I and P. – murdered in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
He was not, McDonald said, a “reliable witness.” (For his part, Dr. Evans believes that changing his mind would have had little effect on the verdict.)
McDonald also revealed that Dr Evans had written a further report on Baby C which was now with Letby’s prosecution team. Despite numerous requests, they refused to share the report.
He added that during the original trial the judge had ignored defense questions about Dr. Evans’ trustworthiness and rejected requests to have him removed from the case.
Last month, in these pages, I myself questioned Dr. Evan’s “trustworthiness.” At the time, I was the only person (as far as I know) in the mainstream media who had questioned his role as an expert witness, although it has been an ongoing debate in various online legal and medical forums for some time.
Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby has been sentenced to remain in prison until her death, but further questions are being raised over the safety of her sentence.
Dr Dewi Evans rejected the term “expert witness” and preferred to be described as an “independent medical witness”.
People asked me why did I do it? Why take the risk and question a doctor, with a 30-year track record in clinical negligence and child protection in criminal and civil cases, who was appointed to the Letby case first by Cheshire Police and then as an expert witness by the Crown Prosecution Service? the Crown? Service?
My response was that, based on my research and my careful reading of the court transcripts from the 2023 trial, Dr. Evans 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, the 74-year-old grandfather had been a consultant pediatrician at Swansea’s Singleton Hospital specializing in endocrinology and childhood diabetes.
Dr Evans has since told the Mail that his “neonatal clinical (practice) practice developed from the mid-1970s to 2007”. In reality, the “expert witness” in the Letby case had not been responsible for the care of a newborn for 16 years.
Not surprisingly, she didn’t recognize a monitor given to her during the trial that is used to track a baby’s vital signs.
I wouldn’t have done it either, based on my experience as a nurse in a neonatal unit in Liverpool back in the 1980s. You simply cannot compare the care given to a newborn back then with what improved technology and knowledge have made. possible now.
So, given that Dr Evans was not a specialist neonatologist with experience in a 21st century neonatal unit, I asked him if he was the best choice as a key prosecution witness in these clinically complex cases.
He certainly made the most of his 15 minutes of fame following the Letby trial, appearing regularly on television, radio and podcasts to discuss the case. On the other hand, you have a business to promote.
Since retiring from clinical work 15 years ago, he has developed 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’ evidence as “useless” and said he had made “no effort to provide a balanced opinion”. (Dr. Evans says he stands by his report in this case.)
As for the Letby case, Dr Evans actively sought a role when he heard about the high number of baby deaths at Chester hospital, writing to a contact at the National Crime Agency that it was “my kind of case”. Letby’s attorney at trial even accused him of “touting the position,” according to the transcripts.
He spent seven (presumably lucrative) years working for Cheshire Police reviewing the clinical notes of the 30 babies who died or suffered unexplained collapses in the unit where Lucy Letby worked, before being appointed by the CPS.
At the very least, I would say that Dr Dewi Evans calls into question the role of expert witnesses in our judicial system, and we should examine how they are appointed and reform the practice if necessary.
There are other questions to answer. In July, 24 real (in my opinion) experts from various disciplines signed a private letter to Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood raising concerns about “possible wrongful deaths presumed to be murders.” in the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
Which brings me to Dr. Richard Taylor, a neonatologist and one of more than 50 experts now re-examining – pro bono – the prosecution’s case.
At Monday’s press conference he talked about Baby O, one of the babies Letby was convicted of murdering. After studying all available records, he said the team concluded that the baby died after a series of medical errors, including a needle accidentally inserted into the baby’s liver, causing bleeding that was unknown to the staff trying to resuscitate him.
With each passing month, new concerns arise about the trial. I think Lucy Letby, now 34, may be innocent.
Justice demands that he be given another chance to prove it, and that surely begins with proper scrutiny of the prosecution’s star witness.