Lucy Letby trial expert witness denies 'changing his mind' on murders

The main expert witness who helped convict Lucy Letby today hit back at claims he 'changed his mind' on how she murdered babies and accused her lawyers of 'unsubstantiated, unfounded and inaccurate' presentation of his evidence.

Dr Dewi Evans accused the serial killer's barrister, Mark McDonald, who called a press conference to announce he was seeking permission from the Court of Appeal to 'immediately' reopen the case, as 'unedifying (and) 'most unprofessional' behaviour. 

He also said his actions were 'highly disrespectful to the families of babies murdered and harmed by Lucy Letby.'

On Monday Mr McDonald, who took over as Letby's barrister three months ago, said his team had 'significant and profound' evidence that her convictions were unsafe. 

The lawyer, who specialises in miscarriages of justice, said Dr Evans had 'remarkably changed his mind' over the mechanism of death of three of Letby's murder victims, children known as Babies C, I and P.

He also claimed there was 'fresh evidence' in the cases of two premature newborn boys - Baby O and Baby C – that had not been presented to the jury that proved they had not been harmed deliberately.

But today Dr Evans hit back at Mr McDonald's claims, saying he had presented the evidence he gave at Letby's first trial 'inaccurately.'

'Mr Mark McDonald's observation regarding my evidence is unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate,' he said. 

'His method of presenting his information reflects clear prejudice and bias. I cannot recall any (barrister) 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.'

Dr Evans said the 'only place appropriate to deal with any potential appeal is the relevant court' and added that he would be 'pleased' to do so again 'on oath, subject to cross examination, and where my evidence is placed in the public domain.'

And he cited comments made by Lady Justice Thirlwall, the judge overseeing the public inquiry into Letby's crimes, adding: 'Anything disclosed through any other source is, as Lady Thirlwall put it so eloquently, just 'noise'.'

Letby, 34, was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others between June 2015 and June 2016 when she worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital. 

The former neonatal nurse, who was recently questioned in prison over more baby deaths, was found guilty of the seventh attempted murder of a premature baby girl, known as Baby K, after a retrial this summer. 

She has already lost two bids this year to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal.

Addressing each infant in turn, Dr Evans explained that he first highlighted that Baby C suffered inflicted harm at or around 11.00pm on Saturday June 13, 2015 in a preliminary report which he wrote in November 2017, at a time when he was 'unaware that Lucy Letby was a suspect or had been removed from clinical responsibilities.'

He said he was only told about confusion regarding the date of the alleged incident earlier this year but had 'since forwarded a detailed report to Cheshire Police' to clarify the time of Letby's murderous assault and the cause of Baby C's death.

In the case of Baby I, a premature girl who Letby attacked three times before murdering on her fourth attempt, Dr Evans said he had not changed his view on how she died, adding: 'The evidence of Letby's involvement in the little girl's earlier deteriorations and her involvement in the event that led to her death was compelling and overwhelming.'

And similarly, in the case of Baby P, he added: 'The evidence from numerous sources noting the cause of death and Letby's involvement was consistent and considerable.'

Letby's original defence team challenged the reliability of Dr Evans' evidence during her trial, claiming the retired paediatrician was biased and lacked independence.

But the trial judge, Mr Justice Goss dismissed Letby's application to have his evidence thrown out, saying: 'His opinions in relation to the cases were given without knowledge [of] the other material in the case relating to shift patterns and potentially incriminating material relating to the defendant, and there is evidence from other experts supporting some of the conclusions reached by Dr Evans.'

The judge did allow criticism of Dr Evans, made in another family court matter, to go before the jury, saying it was up to them to determine, as with any witness, his reliability. 

The three senior judges at Letby's subsequent appeal also agreed Mr Justice Goss had been right not to accede to the defence's application to have Dr Evans' evidence dismissed.