Skip to content

July 2026: Government declines to widen the Thirlwall terms of reference (16 July) · new 100-page insulin report to the CCRC challenging the trial evidence (9 July) · Thirlwall report still expected no earlier than September · inquests relisted to 2027 · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.

Lucy Letby Facts
Editorial summary (not a verbatim transcript)
2022–2023·Dr Dewi Evans; R v Letby (2022–2023)

Dr Dewi Evans — prosecution expert testimony (summary)

Dr Dewi Evans was the Crown's lead causation expert and gave evidence across most counts in the original trial. This page summarises how his testimony was structured, the diagnostic framework he applied (particularly for air embolism), and the independent expert critique that has accumulated since. Lucyletbyinnocence.com hosts a near-verbatim archive of his testimony.

Last updated

Editorial summary — not a verbatim transcript.

This page is a summary written for this site. It is not a mirror of the primary document, and nothing on it should be quoted as the words of any person. An earlier version of this page carried quotations that could not be verified against the primary record; those have been removed. For the underlying record, consult the primary source at lucyletbyinnocence.com. See our corrections policy.

Status: Editorial summary written for this site — not a mirrored document

Original source: lucyletbyinnocence.com

Who is Dr Dewi Evans?

Dr Dewi Evans was the Crown’s lead causation expert across most counts. He is a retired paediatrician, formerly of Singleton Hospital, Swansea. He had not worked in routine neonatal intensive care for over a decade at the time of the 2022–2023 trial. He reportedly approached Cheshire Police offering his services on the case before being formally instructed.

The diagnostic framework he applied

For several counts, Dr Evans told the jury that the skin discolouration patterns described on post-mortem and contemporaneous photographs were characteristic of air embolism, and he cited the Lee & Tanswell 1989 paper as authority. For the insulin counts, he endorsed the Royal Liverpool laboratory immunoassay as diagnostic of exogenous insulin. For the Child K count at retrial, he supported the interpretation that a dislodged ET tube plus Ms Letby’s presence constituted attempted harm.

What independent experts now say

Dr Shoo Lee himself — the co-author of the 1989 paper Dr Evans relied on — has stated publicly that the skin signs described at trial do not match those in his paper. The Panel rejects Dr Evans’s air-embolism methodology across all indicted counts. On the insulin evidence, the Panel and independent endocrinologists emphasise that the Roche immunoassay was a screening test never validated for forensic use. On Child K, the Panel concludes ET-tube dislodgement is routine at 25-week gestation and not evidence of wrongdoing.

A separate family-court judge in 2023 described an unrelated Evans expert report as “worthless” for its methodology.

Full archive

The near-verbatim archive of Dr Evans’s trial testimony is maintained by lucyletbyinnocence.com. We link through to it for the unabridged text.

Read alongside

Dr Evans methodology issue, air-embolism evidence, insulin evidence, the Panel press conference.