The doctor at the centre of the new Lucy Letby claims, which suggested he changed his mind over the cause of death for three of Lucy Letby’s victims, has said the accusations are “unsubstantiated” and “inaccurate”.
Retired consultant paediatrician Dr Dewi Evans responded to the claims of Letby’s new 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 reassess her case because Dr Evans is “not a reliable expert” and the former nurse’s convictions for murder and attempted murder are unsafe.
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 find his style most unedifying, most unprofessional.
“It’s highly disrespectful to the families of babies murdered and harmed by Lucy Letby.”
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.
The Thirlwall Inquiry has heard evidence at Liverpool Town Hall since September and will resume in January, with findings expected to be published in autumn 2025.
Dr 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 added: “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.”
Convicted child killer Letby has already lost two bids to overturn the rulings this year at the Court of Appeal. The first in May for seven murders and seven attempted murders, and in October for the attempted murder of a baby girl which she was convicted of by a different jury at a retrial.
Dr Evans said the first ruling by three Court of Appeal judges “provided a very thorough review of the evidence” presented at Letby’s first trial which lasted 10 months.
He 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.”
Letby was convicted of murdering Child C, Child I and P by forcing air down a nasogastric tube and into their stomachs.
Dr Evans said the evidence of Letby’s involvement in the earlier deteriorations and the event that led to the death of Child I, a baby girl, in October 2015 was “compelling and overwhelming”.
The evidence from numerous sources noting the cause of death in June 2016 for Child P, a triplet boy, and Letby’s involvement was “consistent and considerable”, he said.
Dr Evans said he has forwarded a detailed report to Cheshire Police about Child C, a baby boy, who died in June 2015, which he says “clarifies the situation both with regard to the time of Letby’s murderous assault and the cause of the baby’s death”.
He added he was not involved in Cheshire Police’s ongoing review of the care of some 4,000 babies admitted to hospital while Letby was working as a neonatal nurse at the Countess of Chester from January 2012 to the end of June 2016 and at Liverpool Women’s Hospital in two work placements in 2012 and 2015.
Dr Evans said police should be able to complete their investigation “without any distractions”, as should Lady Justice Thirlwall who is chair of the public inquiry into the events surrounding Letby’s crimes.
In a statement, Cheshire Constabulary said it will avoid engaging with media commentary to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations and support affected families.
“There is a significant public interest in the reporting of these matters, however, every story that is published, statement made, or comment posted online that refers to the specific details of a live investigation can impede the course of justice and cause further distress to the families concerned,” it added.
