Dr Evans didn't single handedly convict Letby. Multiple experts in their specialist fields gave hypotheses which agreed with Dr Evans. These people are impartial and that was their opinion. But Lucy Letbys fans have decided to paint Evans as some sort of pantomime villain. They have done the same to Dr Jayaram and Dr Breary, to an extent. Dr Evans is being villified for giving his opinion and assessment on the Letby's defences latest stunts. And you can guarantee, if he said nothing, these exact same people would be calling him out for not defending his evidence.
And Dr Evans, has given his opinion on the "world-known international neonatologists" and it was absolutely scathing. I think the thing that really gets their backs up, is that Dr Evans is quite partial to an offensive put-down.
He said all of their conclusions are wrong and they didn't have a pathologist, a haematologist, an endocrinologist, an obstetrician. I think that's a fair point, they could have 1000 neonatologists and it wouldn't make their arguement any stronger.
The fact remains, the defence have not secured experts of the same disciplines of the original expert panel to counter their narrative. They have surely been unable to do so, which is absolutely telling.
Instead we have the likes of Roger Norwich, a man who claimed a Dr caused the death of one of the babies, then never mentioned it again. A man who is actually a GEOLOGIST. His speciality is ROCKS. His registration to the GMC was 5th February 2025.
The fact that so much focus is put onto Dr Evans, really shows how weak their arguement is. They could only muster around 40 people in a room for their latest stunt in Hereford. This is a very vocal but tiny minority of people. Letbys defence have the PR company working with them to provide articles for news agencies to publish but really her support is absolutely tiny. The media is obviously going to lap it up, because serial killers always make headlines.
And when it comes to expert witnesses, their role is to the court, to be impartial. Dr Evans viewed the evidence and wrote a series of reports which were whittled down and worked on further. He also changed his opinion throughout the trial, when new evidence emerged. He has done his job, correctly and he withstood all the scrutiny of the defence.
I think it would be better to draw attention to those who have made their positions clear before legal proceedings began. Shoo Lee, Neena Modi, Svilena Dimitrova.
These people could never be independent expert witnesses to the court as they have all showed a ridiculous level of bias or conflict of interest.
JMO
I can agree with you on one accord. Showmen attract attention. They probably wanted it to be positive, they wanted fame, it was such a high-profile case… but see how it has backfired. Well, if a doctor offers himself as a trial expert in a murder case, he should foresee the risks.
So Dr. Breary who stays in the shade accumulates less criticism. TBH, he interests me the most, but his shield is impenetrable.
Most everything in this case is is post factum, making it incredibly weak. Concerns were raised way later; there were few postmortems. So any kind of opinion, be it Dr. Evans or Dr. Lee, is provided way after the infants’ demises. They all may be missing something. But one has to use critical judgment, and to me, dr. Lee’s explanations seem more logical.
About the geologist. Internet is full of experts in any field. There is a much better case on this forum for a geologist, IMHO, but theoretically, even he has the right to put his two cents about COCH, as a potential patient. On TikTok, YouTube, you name it. Court-appointed experts are not laymen. They wrote an opinion, signed it and listed their credentials. They got paid for their time. Were they a good match for the case? Did the court use everyone’s expertise? One wonders why, given that the initial appeal to the public specifically said, “one has to understand statistics” (you see, I remember well what was written before!), no statistician provided his opinion during the trial?
Dr. Evans’ post-trial behavior is puzzling. Dr. Shoo Lee gave his opinion - and left. So did all the experts. The first barrister is not commenting on the case. Nor is the judge. I don’t think it is commonplace post-verdict for those involved to go back to it, unless there is an appeal? I know Jayaram tried to make a “hero” out of himself after the trial, but he is quiet now. (And, he was a mere witness there).
Only Evans keeps on commenting. One wonders whether his interviews are financially motivated, or if he so impulsive that he can be easily drawn into it?
Evans is no fool. Surely he understands that his shocking statements serve to shield the NHS and the NICU from very serious questions? Such as: Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other nosocomial infections on the unit, sewage overflow, poor triaging, and worst of all, staff burnout?
No matter whose side you take, the case should be followed by discussing the stress of NICU work and ways to improve it. Instead, we hear “hot young nurses”, and watch Dr. Evans digging himself a deeper hole. He doesn’t need it. The decision to take this case was his, but for the COCH and everything leading to this trial, he is not responsible at all.
JMO - he should stop protecting others. Dr. Jayaram has to be accountable for own memory lapses, Dr. Breary for lack of trivial education in statistics, CEOs, for poor organization of their work. As long as Dewi keeps falling on a grenade, he just tarnishes own reputation and we can’t get to the bottom of this case.
www.bbc.co.uk
www.dailymail.co.uk
