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.

Yes quite

it’s like you are not allowed to agree with the outcome that stands - ironic

How is it like you're not allowed? Be specific.

Yes, around 14 sounds right - the expert witnesses led by Dewi Evans, and the consultants who were interested parties and obviously weren't going to want to admit to errors in care.

Yes, the trial was ten months - it took a long time to try to prove those charges. I hope it will take less time now before they are reexamined.

The discussion has got this air of as if we are coming up with some lunatic theory when we are just saying we’ve looked at it and support the conviction - along with two juries two judges and court of appeal and we don’t think there is anything that can currently challenge that

Right I’m off to bed

night night all 👋

Sleep well

Well, the person being addressed there has an extensive history that goes well beyond this thread, which if you're not familiar with will probably assist in contextualising. You don't necessarily want to associate yourself with everyone who believes Letby to be guilty. I made a point of highlighting a specific group of them, and there's a reason for that.

And fundamentally, people disagreeing with you isn't you not being allowed to hold a view. If you think it is, that would work both ways.

But your ego is big enough to dispute the validity of the conclusions of the Shoo Lee panel, which means you can't have anything to say about other people's arrogance.

And you clearly don't have significant understanding of the legal process, so it would be worth reflecting on whether it might be that which has made you think people are saying Letby forgot to call witnesses.

It’s the personal nature of some of the comments

im not aligning myself with anyone - just saying I can’t see how there is grounds for retrial - I see it differently than you guys

right really off to bed now - happy posting

night night 👋

No different than a few other posters who participate in LL threads. But it's ok for them because they're on the "right side" even though they have inherent biases which they've talked about at length. I'm sure you'd prefer an echo chamber to just gush about Lucy though. History will show you are on the very wrong side of this.

Guilty as charged.....

Also, being able to speak from experience doesn't automatically indicate inherent bias, it does however add potential nuance and extra perspective. Some people may find it useful or interesting.

Well no, those posters willing to acknowledge how their own biases and experiences might shape their views on the issue are well ahead of you. It's actually a pretty advanced thing to do! Rich that a Tattler has anything to say about echo chambers also.

I don't actually rule out Letby being guilty, so you may have confused me with someone else. The obvious problems with the case and Dunning Kruger problem that some of you have don't necessarily mean she didn't do it.

But you do sound an absolute tit distilling legal commentary from people who, unlike you, are qualified to make it to 'she forgot'. There are people who have valid points to make about whether those explanations are convincing, which makes yours all the sillier.

@CommonlyKnownAs they're not acknowledging their biases though. They're saying "this terrible injustice happened to me therefore it happened to Lucy". I have SO much sympathy for them, and I am 100% behind them and believe every word of what they've said about what happened to them. I just can't agree that Lucy Letby is innocent because of the awful experiences they've had with the justice system or other institutions. I don't think it's the same situation.

Of course that’s not what they are saying! They are just using their experiences to illustrate why they have the concerns that they do about the legal system, and to counter the “she’s been found guilty so she must be guilty” witless arguments.

I am very aware of the potential for bias based on my own experiences. It's why I have never pursued public campaigning or advocacy for those who have experienced similar things to myself.
Cowardly? Perhaps, but getting it wrong could mean a potential abuser being wrongly exonerated, and I am not qualified nor confident enough to make that call.

I even avoided looking closely at this case until I started hearing and seeing almost identical phrases and illogical reasoning and opinion being reported as fact. And I researched, from the ground up, the medical and legal aspects that went against usual due process, as I did in my own case, and realised that something was very wrong in terms of lack of burden of proof.

I am not one lone conspiracy nut working from my own bitter agenda, scores of highly qualified and respected professionals in the field have expressed their incredulity at the quality (or rather lack of) evidence. And I have zero influence, so sharing my thoughts and opinions on this, an anonymous forum will not make one jot of difference to the eventual outcome of this case.

However, I believe in truth and justice and have an interest in that, and think our adversarial system isn't appropriate for cases like this. We should have progressed beyond the public spectacle aspect of a trial as serious as this which has come across as positively medieval in some respects, despite our present sophistication and progress in some areas. And the things like substandard care and poor hygiene and medical error being obfuscated and downplayed suggest corruption and arse covering.

If we cannot have faith in our legal and medical institutions, we cannot claim to be an enlightened or civilised nation, and may as well revert to inquisition level "justice".

I often ask how those who believe absolutely in Lucy Letbys guilt, and defend a patently poor process in every area, if you were accused of a crime but couldn't prove your innocence, would you just suck it up and take one for the team, or would you pursue your exoneration and freedom by the means available to you, which includes often having to accept legal advice you may not even understand fully, but your team hopefully does because they know how to play what is essentially a game with your life and freedom is the prize? I don't think anyone has ever provided a thoughtful answer, bar maybe one or two who have also walked in my shoes and know that being David to the states Goliath is nothing like what films portray.

As the accused, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Modern media muddies that in unprecedented fashion. The hoopla around cases like this contributes massively to issues already present in the system.

This case is both a travesty of justice, and a tragedy for all concerned.

Who do you think is doing that, then? I presumed you were talking about @MistressoftheDarkSide until that post.

And the rest of my post stands. You sound ridiculous claiming that anyone thinks Letby forgot to call witnesses.

Absolutely agree that it's not suitable for a jury. Three judges should sit if it's a matter of possible life in prison.
Dont know enough about AI to comment on that.

He either lied or was incompetent.

AI hallucinates too much shit for that to be a good idea. The technology would have to go well beyond where it is now.

But it's definitely right that the traditional jury system isn't well suited to trials involving very complex and specialist information.

Point is Dewi was not an expert in the field of neo natal care. He was a paediatrician who had not worked in paediatrics since 2009. He was money hungry, had visions of £50 notes in his mind.