chapter nine
CHAPTER NINE. THE CHIEF PROSECUTION “EXPERT” WITNESS, DOCTOR DEWI EVANS
Doctor Dewi Evans was the chief prosecution ”expert” witness. The question is:- Is he really an “expert” in this matter? Dr Evans is a paediatrician, not a forensic pathologist. He has worked as an “expert” witness in some 25 previous cases. Being an “expert” witness in court is his present “job”. He has a vested interest in cooperating with the police, and saying what the police want him to say. He was paid a large sum of money for his work on this case.
Question:- Is it really plausible that Dr Evans would lie, or bend the truth, or “massage” the facts in order to get his pay cheque? I claim that it is indeed plausible. If you don’t believe this, here are some quotes from my book The Dishonesty of Science (subtitle:- Why We Should Distrust Everything That Scientists Tell Us) by Roger Elliott. Alternatively, you can see the same quotes on my web site
This quote is from the book My Life Among The Serial Killers, by Helen Morrison M.D. (certified by The Board of Psychiatry And Neurology for general psychiatry), published by Wiley, 2004, page 68:-
“Doctor Morrison, I’d like you to be a witness for the defence of the (John Wayne) Gacy case,” said Amirante. “We’re going to go for an insanity plea.” (She replied) “Hold on, Sam. That all depends on what I find after I examine him.” I couldn’t simply sign on to be a part of any old team, defence or prosecution. TOO MANY PEOPLE WERE ALREADY “DOCTORS FOR HIRE” BY LAWYERS, PROFESSIONALS WHO WOULD AGREE TO SAY WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO SAY FOR THE MONEY.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Eyes Wide Open. How To Make Smart Decisions in a Confusing World, by Noreen Hertz, published by William Collins, 2013, pages 88 to 89:-
“UP TO A THIRD OF SCIENTISTS ADMIT CHANGING THE - - - RESULTS OF A STUDY IN RESPONSE TO THE PRESSURES FROM A FUNDING SOURCE - - - EIGHTY ONE PERCENT OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH TRAINEES SAID THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO - - - FABRICATE DATA TO - - - WIN A GRANT. A recent study - - - revealed that OVER FORTY PERCENT OF - - - - SCIENTIFIC PAPERS - - - HAVE MISREPRESENTED THE ACTUAL FINDINGS OF RESEARCH, LARGELY DUE TO FUNDING PRESSURE. - - - - Numerous studies have shown that INDUSTRY SPONSORED CLINICAL TRIALS ARE OFTEN BIASED IN FAVOUR OF THE SPONSOR.” (My capitals.)
According to a report published in the British journal Nature, ONE IN THREE SCIENTISTS, in an anonymous survey, ADMITTED TO BREAKING - - in the last three years - - - RULES DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE HONESTY OF THEIR WORK. - - - The misbehaviours - - - range from claiming credit for someone else’s work to CHANGING STUDY RESULTS DUE TO PRESSURE FROM A SPONSOR.” (My capitals.)
Here is a quote from the book The Dark Side of The Mind, by Kerry Daynes (consultant forensic psychologist), published by Endeavour, 2019, page 89:- “I called my supervisor Doctor Renton - - - He ran his own medico-legal psychology practice on the side and was proud of his growing popularity among certain lawyers who could rely upon him to identify a severe mental health issue in any or all of their clients.”
Here is a quote from the book The Guardians, by John Grisham, published by Hodder, 2020, pages 69 to 70:-
“In the 1980s and 1990s, expert testimony proliferated in the criminal courts - - - - thousands of criminal defendants were convicted and put away by SHAKY THEORIES about blood stains, blood spatter, arson, bite marks, fabrics, glass breakage, scalp and pubic hair, boot prints, ballistics, and even fingerprints - - - - - always implicating the defendant. And ALWAYS FOR A NICE FEE. Then DNA testing arrived - - - - - - it brought a fresh and devastating scrutiny to THE JUNK SCIENCE - - - - In at least half of the DNA exonerations of innocent men and women, BAD FORENSICS have been the cornerstone of the prosecution’s evidence. (My capitals.)
Here is a quote from the magazine Crime Monthly, Issue 7, October 2019, pages 48 to 49, Article:- Hair Under The Microscope.
“In 1994 Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, a supervisor at The FBA crime lab, reported worries to his superiors about lab practices, including “ALTERATION OF REPORTS, ALTERATION OF EVIDENCE, AND FOLKS TESTIFYING OUTSIDE THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE IN COURTS OF LAW” - - - - - - In 2015, the bureau formally admitted that NEARLY EVERY EXAMINER IN THE FORENSIC LAB HAD GIVEN FLAWED TESTIMONY. “Of 28 examiners with The FBI - - - - 26 OVERSTATED FORENSIC MATCHES in ways that favoured prosecutors in more than 95 per cent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.” (My capitals.)
QUESTION:- Is Dr Dewi Evans one of the “DOCTORS FOR HIRE” BY LAWYERS, PROFESSIONALS WHO WOULD AGREE TO SAY WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO SAY FOR THE MONEY.” “TESTIFYING OUTSIDE THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE IN COURTS OF LAW”- “ALWAYS FOR A NICE FEE.”
ANSWER:- In my opinion, YES!
Here are some facts which seriously call into question Dr Dewi Evans’ medical knowledge, and his honesty, and his suitability as an “expert” witness
The following quotes are from a report by The Royal Statistical Society, entitled:- Healthcare serial killer or coincidence? Statistical issues in investigation of suspected medical misconduct by the RSS Statistics and the Law Section September 2022. (This is available on the internet.)
Where experts are party-appointed, they have implicit “advocacy-bias”. (My comment:- Doctor Dewi Evans was employed by the prosecution, and therefore DID indeed have “advocacy bias”.)
When assessing whether a particular death was “suspicious” they should remain blind to whether the suspected medical professional had access to the deceased at least until after they have recorded their conclusions on cause and manner of death. Blinding will prevent the kinds of biases discussed in Section 4. (My highlighting.) (My comment:- Doctor Dewi Evans did not assess the medical reports of the babies “blind”. The medical reports fully detailed the names of the nurses that were present for the duration of the babies stay in the unit. In that case, he tended to list deaths and collapses as “suspicious” or NOT “suspicious”, depending solely on the presence of Lucy Letby. This may have been deliberate, or it may have been an unintentional “subconscious” process. However, it is quite clear that his classification of incidents as “suspicious” or not was absolutely biased so as to incriminate Lucy Letby. To verify this, see Chapter 20, item 6, and Appendix. Notes to Chapter 20, items 5, 6, 8, 16, 24, 37, and 42.)
An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate. An expert witness should state the facts and assumptions on which the opinion is based, and should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from the concluded opinion. (My highlighting.) (My comment:- Doctor Evans absolutely omitted mention in the court of any material facts – such as the possibility of infection, the fact that the babies were EXTREMELY vulnerable – which could tend to “detract from his concluded opinion”.)
There is a risk that investigators will be influenced by their expectations and desires. It is possible, for example, that they will cast a wider net when looking for “suspicious deaths” that can be linked to a suspect; and a narrower net when counting suspicious deaths that occurred when the suspect was not present. As a consequence, the deaths counted against the suspected individual could increase (relative to deaths counted against others) for the very reason that the suspect has come under suspicion. (My comment:- Doctor Evans, “cast his net” “widely” or “narrowly” entirely depending on the presence of Lucy Letby. That is very clear! This was an absolutely incorrect procedure. The prosecution could never have secured a conviction if Doctor Evans had “cast his net” fairly, instead of in an absolutely biased manner.)
Now here are some quotes from – The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case, by Doctor Phil Hammond (MD) – Private Eye (magazine) Special Report (available on the internet).
Private Eye Special Report, Part 3. Doctor Evans had not practised neonatal medicine for some 13 years. Professor Mike Hall wrote to The British Medical Journal to raise concerns about “the suitability of the prosecution - - - expert witness” (My comment:- Evans was, therefore, “out of touch” with latest developments in neonatology.)
Private Eye Special Report, Part 1. Dr Svilena Dimitriva, an NHS consultant neonatologist commented:- “The theories proposed in court (by Doctor Evans) were not plausible - - - full of medical inaccuracies - - - the information presented was flawed”.
Private Eye Special Report, Part 2. A “very senior neonatologist” described “many of the comments” of the expert witness as “medically illiterate”.
Private Eye Special Report, Part 10. Doctor Tariq Ali, a consultant neonatal and paediatric anaesthetist stated that statements from Evans “directly contradict my own experience as a neonatal - - - - care specialist”.
Private Eye Special Report, Part 8. Doctor Evans wrote a report on Baby C, stating that the baby was at great risk of collapse. However, in court, he altered this opinion, and testified that air had been deliberately injected into the baby’s stomach.
Private Eye Special Report, Part 4. Doctor Dewi Evans had been an “expert” witness (in court cases) for more than thirty years.
Private Eye Special Report, Part 8. Doctor Evans boasted that “In 35 years, I have never LOST a murder, manslaughter or serious abuse case, other than one. - - - - LOSING my one case still rankles.” (My capitals and highlighting.) (My comment:- It is not supposed to be about winning or losing. It is supposed to be about establishing the truth. If you go into the court determined to WIN, because LOSING might damage your fragile ego, then justice has to “take a back seat”. The Lucy Letby case is all about justice “taking a back seat”, just so that a few fragile male egos can congratulate themselves on another “WIN”.)
Private Eye Special Report, Part 5. Doctor Phil Hammond MD. (the author of this Private Eye report) cannot find a single neonatal expert or clinical pathologist prepared to either privately or publically support the diagnoses of murder and attempted murder that Doctor Dewi Evans testified to in the court.
Private Eye Special Report, Part 7. Evans has “revised his view multiple times” over a 14 month period (regarding the death of baby C.) (My comment:- It seems “amateurish” to keep changing his mind regarding cause of death.)
Private Eye Report part 12:- Doctor Dewi Evans AFTER THE TRIAL signed a statement to the effect that “none of the babies were killed as a direct result of the injection of air - - - deliberately injected into their stomachs.” (My comment:- Previously, he had stated that injecting air or fluids into the babies’ stomach via the naso-gastric tube was one of the murder methods used by Lucy Letby. This was used as evidence at the trial. Now, AFTER THE TRIAL, he changes his mind! So amateurish!)
Private Eye Special Report, Part 4, and Part 6. Lucy Letby was accused by Doctor Evans of punching a baby in the abdomen, thus causing liver damage. According to medical experts, the liver damage observed could have been a “ruptured subcapsular haematoma”, which is not all that uncommon after difficult births. Doctor Evans never mentioned this possibility in the court. (My comment:- He had an absolute duty to mention this alternative hypothesis. However, if he had mentioned it, his chances of WINNING – which is what Doctor Dewi Evans is all about – would have been diminished.)
Now for some quotes from the article in The New Yorker (issue for May 20th, 2024) by Rachel Aviv, entitled – A Reporter at Large – Conviction.
New Yorker article, Page 46:- In a different case, a judge had described a medical report written by Evans as “worthless - - - No court would have accepted a report of this quality - - - TENDENTIOUS and PARTISAN expressions of opinion that were outside Doctor Evans’ professional competence - - - amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct”. (My capitals.) (My comment:- I capitalised the words “partisan” and “tendentious” in the above quote. The dictionary definition of the word “partisan” is:- “strong, especially unreasoning supporter of a party cause”! – or “loyal to a particular cause – biased”. The dictionary definition of the word “tendentious” is:- “calculated to promote a particular cause or viewpoint”. An “expert” witness in a court SHOULD be there to promote the search for truth and justice, not to simply “promote a particular cause or viewpoint”.)
New Yorker article, Page 47:- For one baby, Evans wrote (in a preliminary report) that he “could not exclude the risk of infection”. Evans later testified in the court that death was from pumping air into the naso-gastric tube. (My comment:- I surmise that Evans’ paymasters, The Crown Prosecution Service, had advised him that mentioning “infection” might not secure a “win” for the prosecution, and suggested that he should alter his testimony if he wanted to retain his position as “expert” witness for the prosecution.)
New Yorker article, Page 48:- In one case, Evans stated that death was from air injected into the naso-gastric tube. When it emerged that the baby probably did not ever have a naso-gastric tube, he altered his testimony to deliberately “smothering” the baby. (My highlighting.) (My comment:- Doctor Evans keeps on “changing his story”. It seems amateurish, and suggests that he is “partisan”, wishing to secure a conviction irrespective of the actual facts.)
Now for a quote from the following U-Tube video:-
(The) Amazing Academics (U-Tube series). Serial Killers and Statistical Blunders - Why Lucy Letby might be wrongly imprisoned: John O'Quigley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbN6j-IPQAU
Professor John O’Quigley, Professor of Statistics at University College, London stated as follows in the above U-Tube video:- When Doctor Dewi Evans came to the division of the 61 cases into 25 suspicious and 36 non-suspicious, he claimed for some time that he did not know which cases involved Lucy Letby, although recently he has admitted that he did know, because the names of the nurses involved in each case were noted in the medical case-notes. Doctor Evans “knew exactly which cases involved Lucy Letby” (before he decided which incidents were suspicious, and which were not). (My comment:- Either Doctor Dewi Evans deliberately lied about this, pretending that his selection of incidents was “blind” – or he had a “lapse of memory”. In my opinion, this was NOT a mere “lapse of memory”.)
Now for some quotes from the book Lucy Is Innocent – A Miscarriage of Justice Analysed and Corrected, by Paul Bamford, SECOND EDITION. (I strongly recommend this book!)
Pages 242 to 243:- Baby M. Accusation – air introduced via drip-port. Doctor Evans grudgingly admitted that this was SPECULATION WITH NO EMPIRICAL BASIS. (My capitals.)
Page 329:- Baby O. Doctor Evans changed his allegation from liver injury to air embolism.
Pages 337 to 339:- Evans changed his testimony in respect of three other babies – Babies O, P, and Q.
Page 168:- Professor Kendrick (who is:- “An accredited authority on neonatal pathophysiology, with a background in academia – See pages 25 and 42 and 356 of Paul Bamford’s book for Professor Kendrick’s qualifications) describes Evans’ allegations as “fanciful” and states that Evans ignored the medical backgrounds of the babies. Professor Kendrick discusses Evans’ allegations of smothering, sharp instruments down the throat of babies, and injecting air down feeding tubes as “ludicrous”.
Pages 356 to 357:- Professor Kendrick states that:- “All the babies died from well-accepted medical causes.” He states that “The unit was out of its depth.” He mentions “poor sanitation and infection (on the unit).” He states that Doctor Evan’s hypotheses of attack and murder had “very little scientific basis.”
Here is a quote from the internet – U-Tube video:-
Dr Richard Gill and According to Carl discuss similarities between Lucy Letby and Ben Geen cases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7cHtiNtgOA
Statistician Doctor Richard Gill calls the Letby case “a farcical disaster”. Doctor Gill calls Doctor Dewi Evans a “charlatan”. (My comment:- The dictionary definition of the word “charlatan” is:- “a person falsely claiming special knowledge or skill”. I would agree with this description of Doctor Dewi Evans.)
Now for a further quote from the internet:-
Doctor Dewi Evans gave a full interview in which he stated as follows:- QUOTE – “Any neonatologist will tell you that it is very very rare indeed for a baby on a neonatal unit to suddenly collapse, and suddenly die, and where the death is unexplained”. END QUOTE. To see this interview, go to the following U-Tube video:-
Dr. Dewi Evans full interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKmU6powxYA
My comment:- He is dead wrong about this. He is either ignorant, or he deliberately lied. His ignorance or deceit has helped to imprison an innocent person, See the next quote to verify this.
This quote is from the article in The New Yorker (issue for May 20th, 2024) by Rachel Aviv, entitled – A Reporter at Large – Conviction, page 37:- A study of 1000 infant deaths published in The Journal of Maternal Foetal and Neonatal Medicine found that the cause of mortality was unexplained for half the new-borns.
This comment is from a U-Tube video.
Lucy Letby's lawyers to share 'new evidence' they claim 'significantly undermines' convictions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXuRLIPI9DY
Doctor Roger Norwich stated that Doctor Evans is “dogmatic”. He also commented “Absolutely appalling and unsustainable medical evidence.”
These quotes from an article in The Guardian are from the following web page:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence
Tue 9 Jul 2024 07.00 BST
Roger Norwich, a medico-legal expert with an interest in paediatrics and newborns, has also made complaints to the GMC. He has put in a complaint about Evans, and has also put in a complaint about the second witness, Bohin. He said he thought both had failed to provide balanced, impartial views, instead giving the court “opinions that would not be supported by most doctors”.
My comment:- In my opinion, Doctor Evans put forward hypotheses and speculations in the courtroom, and purported them to be indisputable scientific facts. He did not mention any other alternative hypotheses in the court, as he should have done. He should never have been allowed to give evidence in the courtroom. In my opinion, he was determined to WIN at all costs, irrespective of truth and justice. He was either deliberately dishonest – or he deceived himself as to the validity of the speculations that he put forward as “evidence”. In any case, were it not for his biased and “partisan” and “tendentious” testimony, Lucy Letby would not now be in prison.
Here is a quote from a U-Tube video.
Was The Lucy Letby Trial Judge Incompetent?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRudI8fwNi0
An appeal court judge, Lord Justice Jackson, (who had encountered Doctor Evans at another trial) sent a letter to the Lucy Letby trial judge stating that Doctor Dewi Evans was “untrustworthy and unreliable”.
Here is a comment from a U-Tube video. I have not corrected for spelling or grammar.
Dr Hammond is absolutely right about Evans... I've served as an expert witness and regularly attended court for the last 15 years. I've no idea how many I've 'won' or 'lost' because I am there to provide expert evidence to the court that will aid them in making their decision. It is a huge red flag for any expert to quote win statistics as an expert, and the man is obviously a complete narcissist who doesn't understand the role of an expert witness.
A FINAL WORD FROM “CLOUD CUCKOO LAND”.
This is a quote from – The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case, by Doctor Phil Hammond (MD) – Private Eye (magazine) Special Report (available on the internet), part 16:- The “dream team” of international expert neonatologists perused the same medical reports that Doctor Dewi Evans had perused, and concluded that NONE of the deaths and collapses of the infants on the unit were due to deliberate harm, and that suboptimal care was mostly to blame. Doctor Dewi Evans’ response to this assessment was as follows:- “Quite frankly, their conclusions are deeply flawed and erroneous”. (My comment:- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????)