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.

I’m sure they wouldn’t act like puppets and what you’ve said about contradictions sounds sensible to me - you want a coherent case

the point is the jury saw all of this and sent back a unanimous verdict both times - the trial was 10 months!

sounds like Dewey was managing his responses in light of cross examination - we don’t see the whole context and this is probably not court transcript too - he’s saying baby collapsed and died which is the truth

The normal scientific gold standard - which Shoo Lee's International Expert Panel upheld - is to have two people write reports blind without seeing the other's. You can then discuss any differences to see if you can reach a consensus, but you are left with a full record of your independent work and any changes.

I think it's a great pity that the prosecution didn't hold itself to this standard in such an important case. I actually think it's a pity for Evans too. This process protects everyone involved and keeps their feet on the ground

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.

logically this just doesn’t make sense to me. Firstly how has he rules out all natural causes…..him not being able to determine a cause is not the same as ruling out all other causes. I was always taught that diagnosis should be a positive event not just well it’s not x or y so it must be z.

Sometimes with a premature or poorly baby there might not be something which can be determined by a test…..especially if the tests aren’t undertaken at the time. Babies get weaker, tired, struggle and collapse…and sometimes that can happen suddenly and unexpectedly. They can have a small bleed due to fragile vessels, their lungs get tired, they pick up an infection which may not have been picked up in time (or at all).

Remember at the time of these babies deaths nobody was thinking murder (on an individual basis), they had natural causes, etc put on their death certificates.

It is true, there’s plenty about it out there if you care to look. The other case of the little boy who died of Addisons disease is horrific too, I cried listening to his father on the Sweeney podcast.

Only in online forums and blogs - there’s nothing in the court records/newspapera reliable sources etc

There are lots of court transcripts in the public domain. He also changed his mind on the stand when he realised by listening to another witness that he’d relied on an x ray taken before she’d ever met the baby, and after the trial he recanted on a cause of death that she was convicted on. He should be in jail.

I don't know whether she did it or not. However, that guy being allowed to be used as an expert witness is ridiculous. Her defence team hugely failed her and the police woman came over a bit stupid. She said oh she was open about some questions then suddenly wouldn't answer others. That's because some were about procedures and others were asking her to remember what she did on a certain day at work years ago prior to and after an indicent which wasn't an unusual occurrence. They were completely different questions.

Ive read about it in a newspaper.

I’ve read it would be normal to reflect and acknowledge that in his position and it isn’t this kind of smoking gun

no that example is in the vernacular and not from the transcript

Maybe they were quoting from blog - I’ve tried to look it up and it’s not there

was it a court case or a conference?

I'm talking about people literally abusing and harassing him and I very much hope none of those doing that work in healthcare around vulnerable people!

let’s hope you don’t have baby that needs care

Shouldn't I be saying that to the people who want a baby killer released, possibly straight back onto the nearest neonatal unit if they had their way...

It's really not normal to write a new report after the trial ends. Because the expert witness's job is to write a report based on the evidence he is given before the trial. He wrote it after he admitted to Channel 5 that he had changed his mind about a cause of death. The same documentary showed experts explaining the cause of death was Impossible, so he obviously backed himself into a corner.

Chester police keep asking him to stop talking to the media and have refused to share his new report with the defence, so this really can't be normal even from their point of view!

I’ve definitely read it’s something normal and not the smoking gun people think it is and it happens a lot

I thought he reiterated uncertainty but didn’t say the death was natural so that would be same as trial wouldn’t it?

It is odd then that the police won't comment to say so when asked, and won't let the defence see the report.

I'd say you are right that if expert witnesses have any reason to think they got things wrong, like reading about new research, they have a duty to contact the police. That would be right. But they would not be expected to write a new report with a new cause of death after a conviction. It would be up to the CPS to consider the implications.

I think Evans was trying to retrieve his own reputation and has given the defence potential ammunition. They've asked the CCRC to look into this for them.

He said that air in the stomach alone did not explain any deaths, and has said in the press too that nobody except him had ever said it could.

At the trial, he told the jury that air in the stomach alone was a clinically demonstrated cause of death. He has certainly contradicted himself.

Exactly. Oh he was such a terrible prosecution witness was he according to mumsnet? Should've been a piece of cake for all the defence witnesses to demolish his testimony then. Where were they again?!

Apparently Pp they didn’t want to be associated with defence but they are now - I don’t know what has changed so much

ive read they were stood down because they would have agreed with a lot of the prosecution questions

How can he still be certain that there was a murder if he now can’t state the cause of death?

To me, this is one of the most astonishing things about the whole situation. An expert witness gives evidence about a method of murder on which a person is convicted, and then after the trial recants his statement.

So Letby has been found guilty of murdering a baby using a method which is now known, even by the prosecution’s expert witness, not to be a method of murder.

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_the_judge%E2%80%99s_direction

At this point, this is very much worth a read.

You’ve had it explained to you repeatedly that there are a number of possible reasons defence medics weren’t called. Links have been posted to reputable sources for you to read.

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

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

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.

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?