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

[loellajames]

I'm amazed this guy actually 'got the job'.

He's got a very chequered past. Accusing an innocent mother of having Munchausen's by Proxy, when in fact her child had Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, where tumors cause a build up of acid and painful peptic ulcers.

In July 1997, Evans attended a social services case conference and said there was nothing wrong with Bonnie but that her mother "has problems". Evans said the mother suffered from the syndrome "attention seeking by proxy"

The judge later described Dr. Evans' report in that case as "worthless" and accused him of "proffering an opinion that was better than his actual knowledge."

Evans's clinic and Social Services ensured that Linda and Bonnie were permanently separated; Bonnie was distraught, as was Linda. Due to her parents' efforts, Bonnie's illness was treated.

I find it slightly odd that this didn't automatically bar him from being the expert witness in the Lucy Letby case. And that it isn't talked about very much (I haven't seen it mentioned anyway).

There is something not right about him.

He seems like an opportunist. Dare I say narcissist.

You’re not being thick at all, maybe naive to how the justice system works which I expect we all are to a degree.

And the comment about how she was really clear about the details of her role - but was suddenly vague about what happened to a specific baby! A few years after an event, nobody is clear about what happened - as a junior doctor I experienced lots of distressing and sometimes traumatising events, but I can’t remember every detail years later - sometimes a name or memory will pop into my head, but I would be very unsure about the details.

This is also hard for the public to understand, as the deaths of their family members are so hugely important - but health professionals might not always remember the event clearly

I agree with this hugely. If you ask me about how my job works, what I would do in a specific situation etc. I could reel that off with no issue.

If you ask me about patients I was involved with 3+ years ago, for a matter of weeks at most, I couldn't tell you much at all. I might recognise a few names? I'd absolutely struggle to recall exact details of where I was when x happened. I've seen 100s if not 1000s of other people since then all in similar sorts of circumstances.

I listened to John Sweeney's podcast and he featured Dewi Evans and his history in connection with a medical cover up. Look up the case of Robbie Powell who died aged 10 years old. Evans was a consultant connected to the case.

Totally agree with the narcissist analysis. He absolutely loves the limelight. In Lucy Letby's case, seems extraordinary how glibly he proclaimed this was 'his kind of case despite not being an expert in neonatal care. He just read a paper and wrongly interpreted it. The Dr who wrote the paper said so.

i also wonder how much he was paid by Netflix to appear in the documentary. I find this celebritization of the life-changing distress of others - from a literal ‘armchair’ setting - very disturbing. I would expect a professional expert witness to keep his opinions to the judicial arena to which they belong and at least try to retain a shred of dignity.

Lucy's conviction should be overturned and the police should be in the dock
What happened to due diligence?

The thing is, you can point to one case where he cocked up. No-one is infallible. There are plenty of people who are universally revered who have messed up at some point in their careers, Churchill for example. It doesn't make everything they do unreliable, particularly if it has been thoroughly tested by examination and cross-examination in the courts.

It doesn't change the fact that there was a wealth of evidence supporting the conviction over and above this one witness's; or that no-one managed to produce any adequate reason for discounting his and the rest of the evidence over the course of two trials and an application to appeal.

Watching with interest.

Dewi Evans is indeed an acolyte of Meadows and Southall, all of whom could be described as having dubious motives including career advancement and probable "Mummy issues" of their own for their determination to hold up mothers as the source of all evil.

Evans should just retire from public life and hopefully he will be investigated thoroughly.

Getting someone convicted on untested hypotheses with no precedent (splinting of the diaphragm? Over feeding?) or direct evidence of the fact points to breathtaking and self serving hubris not appropriate in matters of such gravity. "Cocking up" really doesn't cover it.

An international panel of experts have stated that he cocked up on every case, which is more than a little worrying

What exactly is the wealth of evidence? Because I have extensively researched this case, I've spent hours and hours listening to evidence, reading everything I can about it and there is no actual hard evidence of anything. Things like the notes she wrote totally contradict each other so can't be claimed to be a confession because they're also a denial. The handover notes, of course she shouldn't have had them but absolutely not proof of murder. Looking up parents on FB, again she shouldn't have done it but she made hundreds, if not thousands, of searches of many many people. One of the "smoking guns" was Ravi Jayaram saying he walked in to her standing over an unresponsive baby doing nothing, however it has now come out that she actually called him in to the room to help. Then there is the panel of experts who have completely contradicted all of Evans' theories on how the babies died. So where is the actual evidence that she killed these babies?

I agree. In this case it was far easier to believe in the evil nurse than to consider a complex range of clinical failures.
Then the highly dubious and manipulated statistics chart absolutely sold that LL was always present and was therefore the only common denominator.

I also think rape cases are not suited to jury trials, although I have come across so many misogynistic dinosaur judges that I worry about that too.

Dunno, but probably sensible of him to keep a lower profile. This case isn't going to stop being big news any time soon, and thus far he's pretty much got away with lying. That could change.

The fact is it was up to her defence to point all this out, and they didn’t.

I have no idea of her guilt or innocence - there’s a lot to unpack in the case - but it’s clear that her defence did a terrible job and on that basis alone she deserves a retrial.

False memories are absolutely real. I hope you're not suggesting this man should not have done the work he's done on it. It's hardly his fault if his work is misconstrued.

His work has led to more pedophiles walking free to offend. I'm not suggesting he stop his research, but in order to be a well rounded researcher he has a ethical duty to be aware of the consequences of the work he does.

That story is only seen in forums and blogs online - it’s not been corroborated by court records or by any official records or mainstream reporting - it’s on Wikipedia but with no citations so again secondary source with no reliable back up

don’t believe everything you read online

Also there is no circumstance you would have a Judge at a social services conference so that comment isn’t in reference to this uncorroborated case

I thought Cheshire Police behaved appallingly in the interview that was shown. It wasn’t up to LL to offer her opinion on the deaths of the babies. No wonder her solicitor advised her to answer “no comment” to a lot of things.

Evan’s belongs in prison. Egotistical idiot who feels the need to insert himself into things that don’t concern him.

It's not the case that theories relating to false memories are 'absolutely real'. In fact, this has always been strictly contested terrority and in recent years has increasingly been debunked.

This link below is in layperson's language but there are an increasing number of peer-reviewed articles that cast serious doubt on these theories. This is without the ethical implications, given the additional trauma this causes victims which is tantamount to telling them that what they suffered is not 'real'. I'm aware of at least one case where this has been misconstrued by one particularly nefarious barrister who was struck off for her treatment of victims.

To question these theories is not to suggest that memory is photographic or always entirely accurate. This, at least, is known not to be the case. 'False memory' is, however, a different school of thought entirely.

False Memories Are Harder to Implant Than Previously Thought, Study Reveals

I have just looked up his Wikipedia page and found the case of Bonnie and Linda Lewis. Chilling. Evans described the mother as ‘having problems’. The old patriarch likes to throw his weight around doesn’t he? Silly mother getting a bit hysterical, let’s shut her up, because she’s mad! 😡 Is the LL case, a modern day witch trial?

There citations for this story say “questionable sources” meaning it’s not necessarily true and not verified

That’s a good link. I’m a midwife and I’ve said right from day one you could not kill a baby by air down the nasogastric tube. All the paeds and neonatal nurses I’ve spoken to about the case don’t think there’s enough evidence to convict and are worried about the testimony of Evans.

As I understand it The court knows about uncertainty - regardless of his confidence he was cross examined for days if not weeks at the trial which presents the uncertainty to the jury (balancing his confidence) - that’s what the defence choose to do - and don’t forget there were 6 other experts then 7 consultants and another 20 witnesses giving evidence - drs querying the decision or disagreeing and debating after the fact is not evidence for a retrial in the laws eyes - it happens with alot again as I understand it with complex medical decisions

The court may know about uncertainty, but if you look at what Evans said in the witness box, he definitely undermined that.

Here's an extract from the New Yorker article that sparked huge concern about the case, describing one such exchange.

“What’s the evidence?” Myers asked him.

“Baby collapsed, died,” Evans responded.

“A baby may collapse for any number of reasons,” Myers said. “What’s the
evidence that supports your assertion made today that it’s because of air going
down the NGT?”

“The baby collapsed and died.”

“Do you rely upon one image of that?” Myers asked, referring to X-rays.

“This baby collapsed and died.”

“What evidence is there that you can point to?”

Evans replied that he’d ruled out all natural causes, so the only other viable
explanation would be another method of murder, like air injected into one of the
baby’s veins. “A baby collapsing and where resuscitation was unsuccessful—you
know, that’s consistent with my interpretation of what happened,” he said.

If you look at him with the same baby after the trial, speaking to the Guardian, it's the same attitude. He doesn't know for sure what killed her. Yet he's sure it is murder.

Responding to the Guardian’s questions about Baby C, Evans stood by his opinions, and wrote in an email: “Lucy Letby murdered Baby C. Get that into your head.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/my-kind-of-case-intense-focus-falls-on-lucy-letby-trial-expert-witness

It is true that there were other prosecution witnesses. However, Evans advised the police not to take on any other experts, including people outside his field like obstetricians, until he had written his full reports. His reports were then sent to the other experts before they started work, and part of pre trial discussions consisted of him working with them to iron out contradictions. They aren't independent actors.
^^