Context
A joint expert report specifically on the insulin evidence in the cases of Babies F and L. The Panel convened endocrinologists and clinical biochemists to address the Roche immunoassay result end-to-end: the assay’s validation scope, the specific way the samples were collected and stored, the absence of confirmatory mass-spectrometry testing, and the implications for whether the result can sustain a finding of exogenous insulin administration.
Findings in brief
- The Roche immunoassay is explicitly not marketed or validated as a forensic assay for exogenous insulin. The manufacturer’s protocol requires confirmation by mass spectrometry.
- Confirmatory mass spectrometry was not performed. The Royal Liverpool laboratory that processed the samples does not, per its own published protocol, have the assays required to establish exogenous insulin.
- Sample storage and processing conditions departed from the manufacturer’s requirements (centrifugation, freezing, timing). These departures are independently sufficient to compromise the result.
- Multiple recognised confounders — insulin auto-antibodies, certain drugs, sepsis, adrenal suppression, kidney issues — can produce the reported pattern without exogenous insulin.
- The numerical value reported is implausibly high even on the prosecution’s own theory of spiked TPN, comparable with values seen in intentional self-administration of 200+ units of insulin in adult suicide attempts.
Read alongside
our insulin evidence page, Child F, Child L, science4justice.nl’s long-form technical analysis.