Lucy Letby’s convictions are under renewed scrutiny as key expert testimony unravels, prompting calls to reopen the case.
Lucy Letby’s lawyer, Mark McDonald, announced plans to seek permission to appeal and review all convictions after key prosecution witness Dr. Dewi Evans revised his stance on the causes of deaths in babies C, I, and P. Mr. McDonald stated, “Dr. Evans gave one theory to the jury and has not stood by it.” He read a statement by two consultant neonatologists who found “no evidence of deliberate harm” to babies C and O, concluding Baby O died due to “issues relating to the resuscitation” and Baby C due to “problems caused by failing placental function at the end of the pregnancy.”
Lucy Letby was convicted in August 2023 of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others between June 2015 and June 2016 at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Dr. Evans’ testimony was pivotal, asserting intentional harm through insulin overdoses and air embolisms. Recent reports indicate that medical experts now dispute these claims, including Dr. Richard Taylor, who said Baby O died after being placed on an inappropriately high-pressure ventilator that pushed the liver into the pelvis. Dr. Taylor added, “A needle inserted into the baby’s distended abdomen lacerated the liver, causing shock.”
Critics have voiced their concerns about the trial on social media and in the medical community. Consultant paediatrician Dr. Roger Norwich stated, “Lucy Letby’s conviction was astounding to many doctors and experts who’ve seen the evidence.” He added, “It’s almost unprecedented that 50 or 60 or more experts have come out of the woodwork to defend somebody on the basis of what we regard as appalling and unsustainable medical evidence.” One X (formerly Twitter) user commented, “This case was built on circumstantial evidence; how can this be considered justice?” Another wrote, “This needs to be reopened immediately. Lives have been destroyed.”
Official trial records reveal that no direct forensic evidence tied Letby to the deaths. A review published by The Guardian on 10 December 2024 highlighted reliance on circumstantial patterns, such as Letby’s presence during emergencies, without proving a mechanism of harm. Comparisons have been drawn to the Post Office Horizon scandal, where hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongly convicted due to flawed evidence. Medical experts working pro bono on Letby’s case have reportedly described the evidence as “approaching negligence.”
Mark McDonald compared Letby’s plight to the Post Office victims, stating, “It’s like pleading guilty to a crime they didn’t commit because they trusted faulty evidence. Now, we know that evidence was unreliable.” His analogy underscores the gravity of the situation and the potential miscarriage of justice.
The growing doubts surrounding Letby’s conviction highlight the emotional and legal turmoil this case continues to generate. The revised testimony of Dr. Evans and statements from other experts suggest a deeply flawed prosecution case.
The Court of Appeal is expected to decide in early 2025 whether to grant a full review. If reopened, this case could profoundly impact public trust in the justice system and set new standards for handling complex medical trials.
Related:
Comments