Lucy Letby’s lawyers have said they have “new evidence” that “significantly” undermines her convictions after a key medical witness changed his mind about three baby deaths. They urge the Court of Appeal to reopen the case. The Mail has more.
The 34-year-old is currently serving fifteen whole life terms after being found guilty of murdering seven babies and trying to kill seven others while at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and 2016.
She was convicted in August 2023 and was refused permission to appeal against the convictions in May 2024.
Her barrister Mark McDonald was appointed after she was found guilty in two trials and he said today he would be giving details of “fresh developments” in the case.
This is because an expert witness, Dr. Dewi Evans, has “now changed his mind on the cause of death of three babies”, referred to as C, I and P, he said at a press conference. …
Speaking at a press conference today, her barrister said he will be asking the Court of Appeal to immediately review all of her convictions.
He said: “The primary grounds of appeal at the previous hearings related to the admissibility before the jury of the evidence of the lead prosecution expert Dr. Dewi Evans,” he said.
“The defence argued twice at trial that Dr Evans’s evidence should be disregarded.
“This was refused by the trial judge.
“It was then later argued in the Court of Appeal, and was refused in the Court of Appeal.
“Remarkably, Dr. Evans has now changed his mind on the cause of death of three of the babies: Baby C, Baby I and Baby P.”
Mr. McDonald continued: “Dr Evans had said to the jury that Lucy Letby had injected air down a nasal gastric tube and this had led to the death of the three babies.
“This was repeated to the Court of Appeal, which may have been misled when it ruled on the application for leave against the convictions.
“Dr. Evans has also said that he has revised his opinion in relation to Baby C and has written a new report, a new report that he has given to the police, months ago now.
“Despite numerous requests, the prosecution has yet to give this report to the defence.
“The defence will argue that Dr. Evans is not a reliable expert, and given that he was the lead expert for the prosecution, we say that all the convictions are not safe.”
He spoke alongside Dr. Richard Taylor, a neonatologist from Victoria, British Columbia, Dr. Roger Norwich, a consultant paediatrician, and Peter Elston, who is a statistician. …
The defence team has reports from two neonatologists that it claims count as fresh evidence in the cases in relation to Baby C and Baby O.
Mr. McDonald read a statement from Dr. Neil Aiton and Dr. Silvena Dimitrova that said: “Our reports demonstrate that there are identifiable medical reasons why both babies became unwell, sadly did not respond to resuscitation and subsequently passed away.
“We have set out clearly within our reports evidence showing that these babies could not reasonably be described as ‘well’ or ‘stable’. Neither should their deteriorations be described as ‘unexplained’.
“Our reports contain carefully justified new evidence which has not been presented before – either in court or as part of previous examinations of these cases by multiple sources. …
“We have provided evidence that Baby O died due to issues related to the resuscitation. Baby C died due to problems caused by failing placental function at the end of the pregnancy.
“We have seen no evidence of deliberate harm to these babies by anyone.”
Mr McDonald added he also has reports from two neonatologists that he claims count as fresh evidence in the cases of Baby C and Baby O, with no evidence of deliberate harm.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
£££s
Exactly; and € & $ into the future. It’s a long term investment in the trade, quite likely. Not only that, were the recorded deaths caused by Covid-19, or “with” it, in tandem with other illnesses?
Indeed- a new business model of rapid development and rollout based on the same dodgy basic platform
I also think we cannot trust any statistic on “Covid deaths”
Was the bigger motivation not something to do with vaccine passes, digital ID and CBDCs – ie a step on the road towards a social credit system and the ability to control people’s travel, expenditure and behaviour? And possibly also getting universal acceptance of the mRNA platform, maybe with a view to depopulation and transhumanism agendas? Or maybe trying to eliminate control groups for the vaccines by minimising the number of people unvaccinated?
Probably played a part
Different groups with varied agendas all had something to gain
And perhaps the avoidance of traditional assessment methods for brand new drugs. Originally on the basis that we were in an Emergency (Emergency Use Authorization), along with “vaccines” having an easier ride than anything else. Then, when minor alterations were developed on a new “platform” they might make a better profit on each occasion when a new demand occurs.
I wonder how many of those 162 had multiple comorbidities? My guess would be 162.
What’s the definition of a comorbidity? If it is a compromised immune system, then vaccination will soon become a comorbidity.
does anyone have an article i could share about the danger of the ‘vaccine’ for those with autoimmune diseases ? no one will listen to me and they are going downhill with every shot . thank you.
The key point here is the with COVID. This means it uses the usual definition of COVID death, someone died within X days of having a positive test result. This probably includes suicides, car accidents, mobsters discussing business issues with rivals and people getting mauled by lions.
Why, you ask? Altogether now…. Because-because-because-because-becaaaaaaause…. Because of the wonderful profits it makes!
Go ask the man behind the curtain.
Example- a man mending his roof, slips and falls and breaks his neck! It was found he had tested positive for covid a week ago, so, Death caused by covid!
‘Vaccine’ from drowning in a swimming pool, ‘vaccine’ from dying in a road traffic accident, ‘vaccine’ from being killed by an accidental injury… I can see huge business opportunity. Sheeple will unquestionably follow ‘the science’ unable to see the BS as proven by the recent events.
And the best ‘vaccine’ of all , is the ultimate protection – simply obey every single instruction uttered by Your Government and you will be safe, happy and healthy 4eva
Yes, the Government, in the famous words of Assange, exists to move public money into the private hands.
It is interesting to compare these figures with ONS figures for England & Wales.
We are obliged to use the ‘death with covid’ category – within 28 days of a positive PCR test. These include deaths with pre-existing conditions (e.g. heart failure) and co-morbidities (e.g. fatal accident)
The figures corresponding to Italy’s 162/72,422 (0.2%) are 436/80,830 (0.5%).
The ONS figures have been publicly available since January 2022!
Does this mean we carried out far more tests than Italy meaning that over twice the number of people dying from something else had a positive test result prior to their death?
I don’t know – but that could be an answer. After all, without PCR tests, what would have evidenced a ‘pandemic’?
I have written before that a simple comparison of 2020 all-cause mortality charts against earlier years shows significant increases in deaths around March/April 2020 in certain European countries (e.g. France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, UK), whereas in others there was no such increase at all (e.g. Austria, Germany, Romania, Slovenia).
I therefore conclude there was neither a global pandemic at the time, nor was a novel, deadly disease circulating in Europe: a novel, deadly disease would, after all, cause excess deaths in all neighbouring countries.
I can only assume that the excess deaths in those countries with increased mortality were purely iatrogenic, caused by the strict adhesion to WHO-prescribed treatments, which were not so strictly adhered to in other countries. Or does someone have a better explanation for the discrepancies between neighbouring countries?
I quote again Denis Rancourt (https://denisrancourt.ca/), whose team performed in-depth analyses of all-cause mortality data spanning many countries of the world:
Why? Italy was the control country in the west in order for the Western RPTB to see how much control they could exert through fear. Absolutely nothing to do with a deadly pathogen at all.
History shows 20% of us can think critically but sadly the rest can be controlled, “nudged” is I believe the new term, for simply being lied to. Bravo to those controlling the MSM.
Control of every human being on the planet is what they’re after, because they’ve known for 20 years that the capitalist/USA/banking system is finished – hence we have Climate/wokeism/deadly new virus etc.
Putin knows this full well – and China is pissing itself laughing at us all.
Just as an aside, read up on the real reasons WW 2 began – and it ain’t Germany invading Poland…
I do not agree that it reasonable for national statistics to take so long to publish. Data should be monitored continuously and it should normally be right in the first place.
private businesses have to produce accurate date promptly for tge tax man, shareholders and Companies House. Financial services businesses also have to file quarterly data to FCA and PRU.
as usual the public sector is not on top of the roles they are generously paid to do.
Why the pic of the motorbike helmet? As a rider I find that suggestive, distracting and, dare I, offensive.