Dr. Dewi Evans, a former consultant pediatrician, is denying claims made by Lucy Letby's defense barrister, Mark McDonald. McDonald has characterized Dr. Evans and the prosecution's lead medical expert as having revised their opinions in a manner that is unfavorable to the defense and potentially inconsistent when viewed from the perspective of the prosecution team.
McDonald alleged lead prosecution expert, Dr Dewi Evans had changed his opinion about how three babies died at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016.
Expert witness, Dr. Dewi Evans, has claimed criticisms of his evidence by Lucy Letby's lawyers as "unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate".
Lucy Letby, 34, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted at Manchester crown court of killing seven infants and attempting to murder seven others, with two attempts on one of her victims, between June 2015 and June 2016. Earlier this year Letby was found guilty of trying to murder a seventh baby.
Dr Evans said the evidence of Letby’s involvement in the earlier cases and the event that led to the death of Child I, a baby girl, in 2015 was “compelling and overwhelming”.
He claimed the evidence from numerous sources describing the cause of death in June, 2016 for Child P, a triplet boy, and Lucy Letby’s involvement was “consistent and considerable”.
In a media statement, McDonald indicated that he would quickly seek permission from the Appeal Court to review Letby's case, maintaining that Dr. Evans was "not a reliable expert" and that the former nurse's convictions for murder and attempted murder were, as he put it, "unsafe." In a following exclusive interview, shown on the Welsh-language news program Newyddion S4C, Dr. Evans expressed his own surprise at how little his opinions had changed during the course of events.
He underscored that it's quite common for expert witnesses to change their opinions "as evidence changes and evolves."
Dr Evans said: "Mark McDonald's observations regarding my evidence is unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate.
"His method of presenting his information reflects clear prejudice and bias.
"I find his style most unedifying, most unprofessional. It's highly disrespectful to the families of babies murdered and harmed by Lucy Letby."
Evans said he could not recall a senior barrister advocating on behalf of a client at a press conference and “especially a case of such sensitivity”.
He further commented: “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.”
Dr. Evans said: “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.”
The person appealing the case must believe that the judges made a mistake for the appeal to be granted. Counsel Evans stated that the Manchester trial was "protracted" but felt that the judges were very clear on the outcome. After ruminating on what was presented in the trial, they came back and quite clearly supported what he had laid out as evidence during said trial. The judges felt the evidence was very much in line with declaring Letby guilty.
Dr Evans said he was aware of two further developments with regards to the lucy Letby case, namely The Thirlwall Inquiry which will examine the circumstances of how the Letby case happened and secondly a police interview with Lucy Letby about the possibility she was involved with the deaths of more victims.
Mr. McDonald responded to Dr. Evans's claims by saying: "Dr. Evans has produced a fresh report concerning Baby C, a year elapsed since Lucy Letby was convicted. We ask that this document be handed over to the defense.
The case is now an issue for The Court of Appeal and Criminal Cases Review Commissions.
https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/court-of-appeal-home/
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
