Dewi Evans - there's something seriously wrong with him, right?

The estates manager was called to confirm that Lucy Letby had not lied about sanitary issues on the ward, since they had not been appropriately recorded in the hospital's systems. (That's not a great sign, is it?)

As well as the prosecution expert witnesses (Evans and the five who were given his reports to work on), the prosecution called doctors, nurses and parents who filled in the narrative events around each child's death or collapse. These were witnesses of fact. The doctors and nurses were of course interested parties who were not likely to speak against their own practice. But in most cases, they weren't speaking directly to Lucy Letby's guilt or innocence.

Not trying to say you've claimed the contrary, but I'd like to clarify for anyone reading that this certainly wasn't a case of 34 witnesses arguing from evidence for Lucy Letby's guilt. The witnesses of fact were mostly explaining what parts they had played in various treatments and resuscitations.

The Dunning Kruger is strong there.

The internet has long been awash with people who fancy themselves half psychological expert and half Rumpole of the fucking Bailey, I suppose it was inevitable this case was going to draw them like a moth to a flame.

No, the jury wasn't told about problems at the hospital or the external reports about it. The judge did not allow the evidence to be discussed.

No, the original pathologist was not told there was any suspicion of harm. (The consultants wrote the reports for them, so it is very strange that they didn't mention any suspicion of harm if they suspected harm, isn't it?)

But if the pathologists had seen any evidence of harm, they would have had to report it. (They didn't. Isn't it odd that they didn't see signs of air embolism? It can be accidental after all. They wouldn't have needed to be looking for deliberate harm. They even ruled it out, for baby A! Isn't it odd that neither they nor the treating teams ever saw more air than was natural in the children's stomachs? Wouldn't they have commented? Isn't it odd that they saw a liver injury that could be explained without assault? What did they think they were looking at? Why didn't they express any surprise)

But all that doesn't matter. Evans's argument was that he ruled out natural causes of death. But the original pathologists - the only people who examined the bodies - found natural causes of death. So how has he ruled them out?

Once again, you have no idea of what it's like working with a legal team on a case like this.

Oh gosh yeah the plumber!!! 🤣🤣

34 witnesses v a plumber

We don't know she went against their advice, we just know it was ultimately her decision. Her barrister probably told her "look your defence witness can only undermine the prosecution in a few cases, he basically mostly agrees with them on the rest. It's going to be very risky to have him cross-examined and him admit he has no natural explanation for some of these collapses"-that's the reason none were called that makes the most sense.

Basically stay away from any medical experts and call a plumber who can't be cross-examined on any medical details. That is more than likely what happened. If she was innocent there would be NO issue and she'd be begging for witnesses to be called. It's very telling that the decision was ultimately up to her and she decided against this.

I don’t know if we have seen what your suggesting as an alternate water tight theory - the original trial were definitely presented with these alternatives by the defence as I understand it

yes the original pathologist weren’t looking for harm - you can’t find what you aren't looking for - the deaths have been looked at again and reinterpreted given the new information - yes they haven’t been sacked etc as they don’t do anything wrong for that snapshot in time

The thing is that when you look at the hospital's internal reviews for children A, C, D, E and I, they don't in any way suggest the deaths didn't follow a natural progression. They do acknowledge that child A's death was sudden and difficult to explain.

Then for the remaining two children, triplets O and P, the hospital's root cause analysis said that failings in care probably contributed to the deaths.

Each death had at least three external reviews before Dewi Evans came in the scene. Each has had at least three since. Nobody has found the deaths suspicious or lacking natural progression in these reviews, unless we count errors in treatment like failing to give transfusion or failing to intubate as stopping natural progression.

If you’re right, then this is more than a MOJ. It’s a travesty.

But that’s utter nonsense. Natural causes have not been ruled out at all, and the alleged modes of murder are seriously dubious. Even the three expert witnesses contradict each other.

To answer your question, hero complex, a 6 figure paycheck and a bask in the spotlight most likely. Plus some other dubious psychological factors, with a dash of FII ideology.

But the original PMs did not raise any suspicion of anything other than natural causes. As we have seen, iatrogenic harm resulting from unsanitary conditions, under-staffing and under-skilled staffing, and too few consultant ward rounds are likely.

What would lead anyone to conclude that these babies had been murdered or deliberately harmed retrospectively, rather than very sick, or poorly cared for?

You have no idea how working with a legal team works, and how challenging it is to go against their advice.

No, intentional harm does not explain what happened - there are no recorded cases of splinting of the diaphragm or overfeeding killing a baby. Evans invented a hypothesis.

All the babies bar one had post mortems which concluded natural causes. As far as I am aware, the responsible pathologists have not been disciplined or sacked for their findings. Nor faced charges of negligence.

None that make any logical sense. So we're meant to believe this supposedly totally innocent woman just "forgot" to call defence witnesses to dispute deliberate harm and literal murder. Because of that she's now sitting in jail for the rest of her life on multiple whole life orders, having done nothing wrong. Sorry doesn't happen.

Because the deaths don't follow any natural progression? And because intentional harm explains what happened whereas anything natural has been ruled out?

I haven’t read anything that makes me think she’s innocent no

See Dr J Taylor, the 'expert psychologist'.

In the sense that she's got a BA in psychology like thousands of not-very-academic-young-people, and then a very slack PhD that she borderline-personality-disordered the fuck out of the awarding university to get, such that they waved her through so they need never be in a room with her again.

Literally no clinical experience with patients at all, as in she's never met another human being that she's had a clinical relationship with. And yet selling her useless products and services to damaged, desperate women - whom she'll turn on in an instant if they query her 'expertise' - and available to any organisation or individual who'll hire her as a clinical 'expert' on trauma.

I really really really hope karma is real.

You really haven't read up on this case fully, have you?

I read that it isn’t and it’s perfectly normal forensically - you can definitely know it wasn’t natural causes but not know the mechanics of how - medical causes are not cut and dried - you can still conclude intentional harm happened

don’t forget this is all about a spike in death rates that is unexplained - despite all the foray it was this it was that - I really don’t think consultants would have insisted on getting the police involved without ruling out the obvious that’s now being used - sicker babies etc etc

Havn’t we had this discussion before where you are on the opposite side & just talk about the info given in the press?

thought you might have done your own research by now?

Lets just say you're alone in a room with another person and they sadly dropped dead. A cause of death cannot be ascertained. Should you be prosecuted for murder, even though you are innocent, based on your physical presence alone, and because you've been in the proximity of other unexpected deaths where the cause is also unascertained?

How can he possibly know it was murder if he doesn’t know the cause of death?

The only things that suggest murder are some shonky statistical charts and Letby being a bit weird, as far as I can see?

There’s a Telegraph article that I can’t link to. I don’t understand why this change of mind is not legally significant.

The courts allow for you to say it’s murder without being sure of the mechanism

He didn’t recant - he expressed again the limits of medical certainty - he never said the baby didn’t die by murder - he said he couldn’t be sure of the mechanism - that’s what I understood

if he had recanted by saying I was wrong it would have been explosive - recanted means I got it wrong - he didn’t say that

I think he's very good at the role of expert witness.

The way it can work is:

Expert witness A: the sky was green and the grass was blue and ...
Barrister: surely you mean the other way around?
Expert witness A: I've said what I've said.
.....
Expert witness B: the sky was green and the grass was blue and ...
Barrister: surely you mean the other way around?
Expert witness B: Yes, you're right.

Barrister's questions and objections only count as evidence when the witness agrees with them. So for expert witness A, the judge will sum up by telling the jury, you have heard from the prosecution that the sky was green and the grass was blue ...

To be a great expert witness in terms of winning cases, you stick to your story. That's why Evans could answer Myers so flippantly in the extract above. He has the perfect characteristic for an expert witness. He can't ever admit to being wrong.

So it's no surprise he can claim he's won all his cases except one.

Of course, it's no way to get at the truth either