My LinkedIn conversation with Dewi Evans

This LinkedIn conversation started with me asking Dewi Evans to connect to me. I was amazed that he accepted. I guess my request contained a brief message too, but this is not recorded in my LinkedIn account. I suppose Dewi has it in an email sent to him from LinkedIn. It would be nice to see it.

Dewi – are you there, reading this?

• Feb 3, 2024
• Dewi Evans sent the following message at 11:46 AM
• 11:46 AM Dear Richard. I’ve read your comments re the importance of statistics in court cases. I can’t comment on specific cases currently because of reporting restrictions.
  I would welcome discussing this with you, as it’s a matter that is worth exploring.
• Richard Gill sent the following messages at 12:30 PM 
• 12:30 PM I agree! I am looking forward to the reporting restrictions being lifted. Hope to talk to you within a year from now…
• 12:32 PM Do take a look at the case of Lucia de Berk. The case is horrifically similar to that of Lucy Letby. I helped get her out of jail. Also an Italian nurse, Daniela Poggiali. I acted as expert on the applications to the CCRC of Ben Geen. I am sure he is innocent but UK criminal justice is nowadays badly tilted in favour of the prosecution.
• Dewi Evans sent the following message at 12:36 PM
• 12:36 PM With a bit of luck reporting restrictions will be lifted after the end of the retrial due in June.
• Richard Gill sent the following messages at 12:44 PM
• 12:44 PM👍
• 6:44 PM We have both been interviewed by Raj Persaud! https://rajpersaud.libsyn.com/Raj Persaud in conversation – the podcastsrajpersaud.libsyn.com
• Feb 6, 2024
• 7:03 AM I’m visiting Liverpool to give a lecture next week, dept of statistics. Will probably also check out Chester. Would you like to meet? I’m not interested in reporting restrictions. They are unfair and immoral. Science must not be stopped. Chester police sent Dutch police to my door in the night to intimidate me. This only made me speak out more loudly.
• 7:21 AM Do you have an email address? I’d like to send you some links and materials
• 8:11 AM By the way, reporting restrictions means reporters cannot write in newspapers about evidence supporting Lucy’s innocence. However, it allows the Daily Mail to publish week by week horrible stories about how evil she is, her cushy life in jail, her friendship with another killer … You and I are not reporters. There is no law against us exchanging information. You can tell me about medicine, I can tell you about forensic science. I’m sorry for you that you live in a police state. In the Netherlands there are also disturbing developments. The state is eroding civil rights. In the UK the process has got much further.
• 8:12 AM Fortunately, many investigative reporters are working on the case and many scientists are working on the case. The dam is starting to crack and it won’t be long before it crashes down.
• Dewi Evans sent the following message at 9:37 AM
• 9:37 AM No problem having a private discussion. But reporting restrictions are reporting restrictions and all that. I’ve no wish to contaminate due process. I’ve no idea re Daily Mail articles. Never read it (apart from the one where they covered the Letby story after speaking to me. My easy access email is xxxx@xxxxx.xxx
• Richard Gill sent the following message at 10:48 AM
• 10:48 AM Thanks for the email address! I do not wish to contaminate due process either. I wish to ensure due process. I can promise in advance of any discussion with you total confidentiality.
• Dewi Evans sent the following message at 10:48 AM
• 10:48 AM Thanks Richard
• Richard Gill sent the following messages at 11:37 AM
• 11:37 AM Interesting development: the Mirror uses a *nice* photograph of #LucyLetby. Doesn’t call her a sadistic killer. And a leading barrister calls for “open justice”. Geoffrey Robertson KC said “Open justice is the principle that makes British courts the best in the world and judges should be more vigilant in protecting it”. They used to be the best in the world. Right now they are among the worst in the developed/free world. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-letby-anger-cowardly-doctors-32045213Fury as ‘cowardly’ docs and nurses who worked with Lucy Letby keep names secretmirror.co.uk
• Feb 22, 2024
• 6:56 PM You asked for all the deaths and all the collapses in the period January 2015 to July 2016. They gave you all the deaths but only collapses when Lucy was there. There must have been at least 50 collapses when she wasn’t on duty, given the acuity of those infants. You were lied to, you were used.
• Feb 23, 2024
• Dewi Evans sent the following message at 10:31 AM
• 10:31 AM That is incorrect. I received information re numerous collapses. I separated them into those that were explained by the common causes- infection, haemorrhage etc and those that were not explained, ie suspicious. The name Lucy Letby was not known to me at the time.
  As for “at least 50 collapses” I don’t know where you got that figure from.
• Richard Gill sent the following message at 10:54 AM   
• 10:54 AM Interesting. Your story does not match the story one gets from other sources (for instance, the police themselves). I got my figure from several neonatologists and a similar figure from nurses with experience in neonatal intensive care. Secondly, “not explained” is not synonymous with “suspicious”. This confusion of words in the minds of on experts was exactly what led to the conviction of Lucia de Berk. I recommend you study it carefully!
• Dewi Evans sent the following message at 11:17 AM
• 11:17 AM Away this weekend. Back Tuesday.
  Content to engage post the appeal and retrial. Information from the police was all disclosed to the Defence presumably. Those are the rules.
  No idea which other neonatologists involved. 2 gave reports for the Defence. They were not called. That’s a Defence issue.
  Read the Lucia de Berk story via Wikipedia weeks ago.
• Richard Gill sent the following messages at 11:35 AM    
• 11:35 AM I know, the defence was useless. Scandalous. The newspapers were appalling. Social media too. This was not a fair trial.
• 11:37 AM Lucy Letby was a whistleblower and got crushed by the NHS. Much better to put the blame on a killer nurse than on lax consultants and poor management. Focussed on cost cutting at the expense of patient care.
•  11:51 AM Have a. nice weekend! I just had a great visit to Liverpool and to Chester. Wonderful to see Welsh mountains in the distance from the city walls of Chester.
• Feb 24, 2024
• 7:31 AM All deaths in the period when Lucy was fully qualified and full time (with very much overtime) at CoCH, and 15 non-fatal collapses *selected by the gang of four* and exclusively at times when Lucy was on duty. How much of the time do you suppose she was in the ward? “Since the start of our enquiries and, as the information gathering process has continued, the scope of the investigation has now widened. We are now currently investigating the deaths of 17 babies and 15 non-fatal collapses between the period of March 2015 and July 2016” https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/16329278.healthcare-worker-countess-chester-hospital-arrested-suspicion-murdering-eight-babies/
• 8:46 AM Interestingly in this case a judge blames previous judges https://www.judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/decisions/Re%20A%20and%20B%20(Children%20Injury%20Proof%20Suspicion%20Speculation).pdf. The root of the problem is lack of understanding of science of judges and barristers and police. They ask scientists and experts and doctors questions which those persons should not be asked, because those experts are not supposed to judge, not supposed to give their opinion given *everything* they know. This is almost impossible for a doctor who, in his or her practice, does have to judge all the time! 2015 NIFam 14judiciaryni.uk1 Neutral Citation No. [2015] NIFam 14 Ref: OHA9745 Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 23/09/2015 (subject to ed…
• Jul 7, 2024
• 9:25 AM Hi Dewi, maybe it’s time we had a chat? I don’t want to blame you. I blame NHS underfunding. Really bad police work, “experts” who don’t follow the rules (and apparently don’t know the relevant science either). The jury system, the contempt of court rules, a biased judge, a weak defence. The farce of her appeal being rejected but the CPS appeal accepted. The CCRC is utterly unfit for purpose and the next stage is going to take five to ten years. This certainly is the biggest miscarriage of justice since those big famous ones which led to the setting up of the CCRC. Of course in public you will presumably, for a while, go on saying you believe Lucy is guilty. I know all about obstinacy! Anyway: my suggestion is we do a Zoom chat, not recorded, Chatham house rules for just us two. Clear the air. I’ll tell you some things you don’t know yet, and vice versa. Win win.
• Jul 8, 2024
• Dewi Evans sent the following message at 10:42 AM
• 10:42 AM Currently getting over Covid, so back to normal next week.
  Afraid I don’t agree with you re the verdict. Letby was as guilty as they come. And to date, I’ve not seen a single comment from a suitably qualified person or institution that offers a reasoned defence. As for social media – best to give it a big ignoral. CCRC?
  As a witness of course one has to work within the system, but recognise its limitations.
  As for other cases, I expect that the police are investigating them. They involve displacement of breathing tubes for no apparent reason. And of course Lucy Letby was the nurse looking after the baby at the time. I’m not in touch with the police or the investigation any longer, so it will be interesting to find the outcome. My hunch is that there are quite a lot of other cases out there.
  [Interesting that since she was suspended in July 2016 (and I knew nothing about that before the trial) there have been few deaths at Chester apparently, and no ‘suspicious’ events.]
• Jul 25, 2024
• Richard Gill sent the following message at 7:27 PM 
• 7:27 PM You would say that, wouldn’t you. Sorry, you are going to end up on the wrong side of history. “No apparent reason” does not equal “murder”. There are plenty of reasons breathing tubes get displaced. A person who gives expert evidence must be completely neutral and mention alternative explanations and margins of error. They must be fully qualified too. I’m sorry, but you are going to be in deep trouble.
• Dewi Evans sent the following message at 8:07 PM
• 8:07 PM Richard. Just asking.
  Have you seen the clinical records of the babies? Have you seen / read the statements of the local medics and nurses? Have you read the statements of the parents? Were you at the trial? Does your medical experience extend beyond knowing which side of the bandaid you put on the wound?
  Cheshire Police are reviewing the notes of all babies at Chester, with the aid of an experienced neonatologist – I’m not involved and unaware of the findings. Don’t know if they are employing a statistician.
  So, Richard. Stick to your opinion. I’m still waiting for your evidence. But, for the record. None of my reports was based on “statistics”. It was based on Evidence. Look up its meaning. Her arrest, her charging, her guilty verdict had nothing to do with “statistics”. It was based on the Evidence of 6 independent experienced doctors, and the evidence of numerous local nurses and doctors. Evidence dear boy, Evidence!
  As for the Defence. It was their decision not to call evidence from independent clinicians and pathologists. Why do you think that was? Apart from the local plumber of course. Does one therefore assume that they consider your opinion less useful than that of a local plumber.
  Finally. Please do NOT make accusations about my evidence, or alleging that my evidence is not impartial. Half of my reports in criminal cases are at the request of the Defence. My most recent report for the Defence, just a few weeks ago, led to the Prosecution withdrawing the allegations within 2 hours of the opening of the trial.
  As for breathing tubes getting displaced for a number of reasons. For once you are correct. If you had listened to my evidence you would have known that I did not allege deliberate displacement of a breathing tube in any of the cases where I gave evidence.
  So, I’ll stick with the facts. Endorsed so far by judge and jury, Appeal Judge and 3 Appeal Court Judges. Not too bad I suppose.
  I look forward to your answers to my questions. I’m sorry if the facts (that word Evidence once more) get in the way of your opinion. But there you are. That’s a problem for you to address.
  Don’t see much point in engaging in a continuing dialogue. But thought that I should respond once.
• Jul 26, 2024
• Richard Gill sent the following messages at 11:08 AM
• 11:08 AM Thanks. I hope you will keep your mind open to new evidence as it comes to light, like a real scientist always does. I hope you will also bear in mind the growing criticism against our judges and courts. UK criminal justice is just as broken as the NHS. I too stick to the facts. The fact is that Brearey and Jayaram ran to the police when they realised that they were in deep shit due to the RCPCH findings. The fact is that you violated the duty of a scientific expert, but of course, as you said, you are not really. a scientist.
• 11:11 AM PS thanks for keeping the line of contact open! I still think that you have a fantastic opportunity to display wisdom and integrity. Do not let yourself be led by pride and vanity. Read the RSS report with great care. I talk to enough doctors who are better qualified than you to interpret those clinical notes, and many of them have access to those notes now. The arguments of appeal judges just show what big fools those people are. Also puffed up with vanity.
• Dewi Evans sent the following message at 2:31 PM
• 2:31 PM Not seen the RSS report! You are welcome to send it, or send me the link. But as I said, my evidence had nothing to do with statistics.
• Richard Gill sent the following messages at 4:07 PM
• 4:07 PM https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2022/section-group-reports/rss-publishes-report-on-dealing-with-uncertainty-i/. This was two years in the writing. Two of the five authors are lawyers RSS publishes report on dealing with uncertainty in medical “murder” casesrss.org.uk
• 4:13 PM The defence didn’t understand medicine, didn’t understand science, didn’t understand statistics. Yeah – lawyers. Defence scored an own-goal by not disputing the interpretation of the immunoassay results. I just talked to a prominent UK professor of paediatrics. I asked him what he thought about the insulin? He basically said it was just bollocks and he explained why. This means that the evidence of Hindmarsh, Milan and Wark was just bollocks too. It may take 10 years, knowing UK criminal justice, but Lucy is going to walk free, you mark my words. Cheshire Constabulary have made enormous fools of themselves, costing the UK taxpayer millions, and by digging themselves in they are only making the debacle for themselves worse.
• Dewi Evans sent the following messages at 4:54 PM
• 4:54 PM Who’s this professor of paediatrics Richard?
• 4:55 PM I’ll read the 64 page report over the weekend.
• Jul 27, 2024
• Richard Gill sent the following messages at 6:18 AM
• 6:18 AM I can’t tell you that professor’s name, sorry. Enjoy your weekend! Let me know if you have any questions about the report. It went pre-trial to defence, to prosecution, and in fact to all concerned parties. The man from the CPS said to me (at a pre-publication try out at the Newton Institute in Cambridge) “we are not using any statistics in the Letby case. They only makes people confused”. The defence too just did not understand the statistical issues, which are issues of scientific research methodology. And of forensic scientific investigation methodology. They got comprehensive advice from a very competent statistician but did not understand a word of it.
• 6:23 AM Sarrita Adams and I sent her medical analyses to the court during the trial, as an amicus brief. It was intercepted by Cheshire Police who sent Dutch police to my door in the night to deliver an intimidating letter. It threatened arrest next time I visited UK, two years in jail, and the cost of re-running the whole trial. The witch-burning mob doxed by mother’s address in a care home in Marlow, Bucks, and planned a demonstration outside. My Mother was 97. They also disrupted a lecture I gave at Liverpool University. The Mirror wrote that I was a sick and deluded conspiracy theorist and that I was attempting to corrupt the youth of England at the university, so the university authorities were evil too. Yep. All in a day’s work when you stand up against a witch hunt. Just so you know you are not the only guy getting publicly attacked in the media.
• 5:47 PM A friend – professor of mathematics – recently asked me: “I can’t understand why medical experts seem to often be so dishonest”. Here is my answer: “They are not scientists. They are trained to be rapid judges and executioners. That’s one thing. The other thing is the medical hierarchy, and clan forming. The paediatricians are more concerned with the paediatricians than with their patients. The youngest and least paid always have to get the blame to protect the reputation and earning power of the older and most highly paid.” These are unfortunately easily verifiable true facts! Think of all those who kept on supporting Prof Sir Roy Meadow. Maybe he was a good children’s doctor. He was however a lousy statistician and a lousy psychologist and this caused enormous disasters. No doubt he was a charming and amicable man. I always invoke Hanlon’s razor. Stupidity is a more likely cause of despicable behaviour than malice.
• 9:12 AM Here’s a name for you. Dr Svilena Dimitrova, NHS consultant neonatologist. Neonatologists against the paediatricians? CoCH had no neonatologist. Your friend well-known bully Dr Stephen Brearey “had an interest in neonatology” but was not a neonatologist. RCPCH (paediatricians!) told CoCH to recruit a neonatologist immediately.
•  9:14 AM I’m not saying it’s all your fault. Police lie and cheat. This has been proven again and again. Cheshire Constabulary have an especially bad reputation in this respect. I think you should cut all links with the bad guys and change sides as fast as possible, if only to save your own skin.
• 9:16 AM The momentum is growing. The Lucy Letby case is the biggest miscarriage of justice in the UK since the Guildford 4 and the Liverpool 6 (or were they 7 or were the numbers the other way round?). Just like the Lucia de Berk case in the Netherlands. The two cases are carbon copies of one another, but things panned out much worse in every respect in the UK. Utterly failed NHS, utterly failed CJS. Appalling gutter press. You should give an interview to a quality newspaper for a change.
• Sep 13, 2024
• 7:07 PM Intelligent life outside the M25: what do you think of me then?
• 7:11 PM Babies do just suddenly drop dead. The Lucia de Berk case made that clear.
• 7:17 PM Unexplained and unexpected actually does happen all the time.
• 7:24 PM How did you exclude infection?
• 7:38 PM There is not one unrecordable explanation of a low C-peptide level. One of the explanations is that it is too high!!!!
• 7:43 PM What about the hook effect?
• Sep 24, 2024
• 4:30 PM And could we discuss the meaning of “accuracy” and “reliability” of immunoassays to determine insulin and C-peptide concentrations? How about specificity and sensitivity? Statistical concepts, I know. Would you be interested in a public debate? Online? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificitySensitivity and specificity – Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
• Oct 1, 2024
• 9:37 AM Hi Dewi, yet again, I want to suggest you change sides! Become a hero. I know you do have the guts to do it, you are not a scared little man. I hope you’ve now studied Marks and Wark (2013) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23751444/. It has a great summary of recommendations at the end. You see, Lucy Letby is innocent, 100% (ie, 99.99% certain, at least). Shall I show you the calculation? Science thrives on the clash of theories. As Niels Bohr once said “now we have a contradiction, at last we can make progress”. I honestly wish you well and know you are a good guy at heart. Forensic aspects of insulin – PubMedpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• 9:45 AM This is also worth re-reading. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15580088_Practical_concerns_about_the_diagnosis_of_Munchausen_syndrome_by_proxy(PDF) Practical concerns about the diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by proxyresearchgate.net
• Oct 2, 2024
• 11:28 PM So you made a nice start, changing your expert medical opinion on three cases! But you are still convinced Lucy Letby was responsible. Surely that can only be by a statistical argument? But where are your statistical calculations and statistical qualifications? As far as I know neither police nor prosecution used testimony from a statistician. Lucy was often present at unpleasant events, but she worked the most hours of any nurse on that unit, and eagerly took the hardest shifts. Lucy’s defence team let her down badly, the judge was disgustingly biased. The whole disaster was not your fault. NHS managers and lawyers have a lot to answer for. Many reforms are needed. But they can only come if the system admits its failings.
• 11:32 PM I offered my services to defence, prosecution, and to the court. But no one wanted to know. Cheshire constabulary threatened me and sent Dutch police to my door in the night, to deliver a letter in person which I’d already received by email. Very intimidating. They needed legal proof I’d received their warning.