Lucy Letby's case raises concerns about judicial reliability amid claims of possible miscarriage of justice.
**Lucy Letby's Appeal Centers on Shift in Expert Testimony**
**Lucy Letby's Appeal Centers on Shift in Expert Testimony**
Defense team claims new evidence questions key aspects of prosecution's case against convicted nurse.
In a significant development in the case of Lucy Letby, a British nurse found guilty of murdering several infants in her care, her legal team announced plans to seek a review of all her convictions. The decision stems from revelations regarding the prosecution's chief witness, whose credibility has come under scrutiny for altering key aspects of his testimony.
Dr. Dewi Evans, a retired pediatrician, had originally asserted that air was intentionally injected into the nasal gastric tubes of three of the deceased infants, indicating foul play. However, recent public statements and a report to the police by Dr. Evans suggest that he has reversed his previous conclusions about the causes of death for these infants. Mark McDonald, a lawyer representing Letby, stated that Dr. Evans has acknowledged a change in his findings, especially regarding the case of one baby identified as Baby C.
Despite repeated requests, the defense claims that they have not received the revised opinions from the prosecution nor any supporting documentation. McDonald expressed serious concern over Dr. Evans's reliability, given that all of Letby’s convictions hinge significantly on his expert testimony. The defense's upcoming appeal to the Court of Appeal aims to question not only the validity of Dr. Evans's latest assertions but to call into doubt the overall basis for Letby’s convictions, raising alarms about a potential miscarriage of justice in a case that has already caused considerable public tribulation.
Dr. Dewi Evans, a retired pediatrician, had originally asserted that air was intentionally injected into the nasal gastric tubes of three of the deceased infants, indicating foul play. However, recent public statements and a report to the police by Dr. Evans suggest that he has reversed his previous conclusions about the causes of death for these infants. Mark McDonald, a lawyer representing Letby, stated that Dr. Evans has acknowledged a change in his findings, especially regarding the case of one baby identified as Baby C.
Despite repeated requests, the defense claims that they have not received the revised opinions from the prosecution nor any supporting documentation. McDonald expressed serious concern over Dr. Evans's reliability, given that all of Letby’s convictions hinge significantly on his expert testimony. The defense's upcoming appeal to the Court of Appeal aims to question not only the validity of Dr. Evans's latest assertions but to call into doubt the overall basis for Letby’s convictions, raising alarms about a potential miscarriage of justice in a case that has already caused considerable public tribulation.
