Bonnie and Linda Lewis 1996.
“Bonnie” (not her actual forename, owing to reporting restrictions) Lewis was the twelve-year-old daughter of Linda Lewis, living in Neath Port Talbot. In November 1996, Bonnie was in considerable pain and attended several hospitals in South Wales over a period of months. Doctors were initially unable to correctly diagnose her illness, but eventually settled on appendicitis. They removed her appendix but to no effect; in fact the operation caused an abscess that almost killed her. She was treated and the abscess healed but she was still in pain and without a diagnosis. Twice Bonnie was prescribed huge overdoses of drugs, which were refused by the pharmacist and her mother respectively. Bonnie was discharged from hospital without a diagnosis. Social Services became involved. Bonnie was still in pain but managing to attend school. 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” – a diagnosis he was not qualified to make – and essentially blocked her from taking independent medical advice.[19][better source needed]
The Full Story. Linda Lewis Campaign.
The evidence ref Dr Evans.
Sunday, 28 August 2011
” Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Dr Dewi Evans exposed as liar, perjurer,falsifier of evidence and instigator in the kidnapping of an innocent child.
Below is a letter dated the 27th of March 1998 from Dr Dewi Evans a former paediatrician in Singleton Hospital Swansea that was sent to Ms Lyn Berlyn of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Social Services.
It is well known and has been proven that the ” Illegal Kidnapping ” of Linda’s daughter from her hospital bed in America at gunpoint was instigated on false and fraudulent grounds using false and fraudulent information deliberately manufactured by Doctors , Social Workers , The Police and the local newspaper The South Wales Evening Post.
Dr Dewi Evans played a major part in the continual misdiagnosis and mistreatment of Linda’s daughter and is a prominent conspirator in this miscarriage of justice and medical cover up.
It is also worth noting that at the time of the “illegal kidnapping” in 1998 by agents of Neath Port Talbot Social Services. Dr Dewi Evans was himself an elected Councillor of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and in 1992 stood in the General Election for the constituency of Neath for Plaid Cymru.
This raises several professional ” conflicts of interests ” that both Dr Dewi Evans and others have deliberately ignored and broken the law.
Such was the desperation of the guilty to cover up for their errors by fabricating and falsifying statements and evidence to protect themselves.
The letter from Dr Dewi Evans to his OWN Councils Social Services is made up of three pages.
In page one below below ( Pages 2 and 3 are just as damning and will be dealt with at a later date. )
Dr Dewi Evans in his own words states,
” It is pleasing to read the opinion of the doctors in Florida. They were quite categorical in establishing a diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by Proxy without receiving any information from any centre in the UK.”
WellDr Evans if what you state in the above is true then please can you explain the following sworn affidavit ( below ) from Miss Lori Fiorino of the Department of Children and Families in Florida.
Some questions then for Dr Dewi Evans.
In your letter of 27th of March 1998 you have stated that
” It is pleasing to read the opinion of the doctors in Florida. They were quite categorical in establishing a diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by Proxy without receiving any information from any centre in the UK.”
then please explain why the sworn affidavit from Lori Fiorino on the 16th of February 1998 above which starts off
“On the 12th of February 1998 the Department of Children and Families received and “abuse report ” alleging that N ****** had been diagnosed with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy in her native country of Wales.
So how did they get this report Dr Evans ? Who sent this false and fraudulent information to the American Authorities ?
As you know Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy was never an issue as far as Linda’s daughter was concerned. If it was why did you prescribe such vast quantities of drugs to her daughter if she was feigning illness ? Some of them are pictured below
and why did you prescribe 80mgs of Oral Morphine to N****** supposedly for her pain ?
You also issued a Discharge Letter on 30/3/97 without stating any diagnosis.You knew that there WAS something seriously wrong with N******.
http://cllrkevinedwards.blogspot.com/2011/07/medical-negligence-1-x-60mg-super.html
This all proves that you and other have lied, perjured yourselves and fabricated evidence to set up a time scale and a false cover story so that on the 18th of February 1998 Social Workers from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council where you were a Councillor could illegally remove Linda’s very sick daughter from her hospital bed in America to cover up for yours and others medical negligence in the UK.
One day you will have to answer to God for what you have done. He may forgive you.
Many of us never will.
Kevin
The above evidence is released under Public Interest Law” and the fact that ” NO INJUNCTION CAN EVER BE TAKEN OUT TO COVER UP FOR CRIMINAL ACTS.”
———————————————————————————————-
Death of Lindsay Angela Alvarez 2009.
In 2009, Lindsay Angela Alvarez from Dundonald, County Down was admitted to hospital with brain swelling. She later died from the complications of salt poisoning. An Inquest into the death was held in 2014. Evans was called as an expert witness and stated to the inquest that it was unusual for a child to get fractured ribs and that he couldn’t rule out that she might have been thrown down the stairs. The inquest had previously been told that the child had fallen down carpeted stairs in her uncle’s flat two weeks prior to her death. The inquest was halted and a report was sent to Public Prosecution Service.[7] The Public Prosecution Service ruled out prosecution in 2015 and the inquest was brought to a close.[8]
Uncle avoids prosecution over autistic girl’s death
https://www.irishnews.com/tags/lindsey-angela-alvarez/
Appeal in the removal of children from parental care 2015.
In 2015, the High Court of Appeal, Northern Ireland heard an appeal relating to the Family Court where two children had been judged to have been the subject of non-accidental injury in Care Proceedings and removed from the care of their parents. Evans had been one of the expert witnesses. The appeal was uphel
[14] By the time he came to give his oral evidence Dr Evans had been shown
photographs of the ear taken on 20 and 21 September. On that basis he shifted his
opinion and moved away from agreeing that they were non-accidental.
[15] In his judgment the trial judge was critical of Dr Evans, suggesting that his
evidence should have been more considered and structured than in fact it was.
———————————————————————————————-
Death of a five-month-old baby 2017.
Evans was an expert witness in the 2021 murder trial of a man later convicted of killing his five-month-old daughter,[10] being able to rule out pneumonia as a potential cause of death in favour of a blunt force brain injury.[
Dr Dewi Evans, a consultant paediatrician, told jurors that Summer Peace had developed the condition after her collapse.
The five-month-old was rushed to hospital on September 8, 2017, after she became unresponsive and struggled to breathe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-56210036
Two people jailed for deliberately and violently shaking babies to death had their murder convictions quashed by the court of appeal today while a third saw his conviction reduced to manslaughter.
Three judges in London ruled that the presence of three classic features of so-called shaken baby syndrome – swelling of the brain, bleeding between the brain and skull, and bleeding in the retina of the eyes – did not automatically lead to a conclusion of unlawfully killing or injury.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jul/21/childrensservices.childprotection
Appeal court judge now retired in this case.
Lord Adrian Fullford.
https://psychiatricabuse.org/judiciary.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole_life_orders
===============================================
Baby murder trial 2018
Did Dr Evans Break The Rules?
The retired paediatrician testified as an expert in a case in 2018 when he was not licensed to practice by the GMC.
https://www.mephitis.co/post/did-dr-evans-break-the-rules
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17269039.doctor-claims-bite-baby-death-intentional/
Dr DEwi email exchange ref Lucy letby case.
https://www.mephitis.co/post/my-correspondence-with-dr-dewi-evans
Lucy Letby case.
Comments by Lord Justice Jackson 2022
In 2022, Evans had written a report used in an application for permission to appeal to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal in care proceedings. The Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Jackson rejected the appeal on grounds that Evans’s report was “worthless” and that he made “no effort to provide a balanced opinion”.[12][13] In a November 2024 podcast interview with John Sweeney, Evans criticised Lord Justice Jackson’s comments.[14][15]
Evans has stated that the Letby case was his most difficult as expert witness. He stopped taking on new cases in February 2023.[3]
Three months into the murder trial at Manchester Crown Court they applied to exclude the evidence of retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans.
Dr Evans was tasked by Cheshire Police to look at a series of collapses on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016.
He wrote a number of reports about his findings and went on to give evidence from last October onwards about many of the children that Letby was said to have harmed.
———————————————————————————————-
Lucy Letby case: the problems with expert evidence.
https://theconversation.com/lucy-letby-case-the-problems-with-expert-evidence-249309
Dewi Richard Evans (born July 1949) is a retired British consultant paediatrician and professional expert witness. He is a fellow of both the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. During the 1980 and 1990s, he helped develop the maternity unit in Singleton Hospital, Swansea.[citation needed]
Beginning in 2022 he rose to prominence as lead expert witness for the prosecution in the Lucy Letby trial.
Letby prosecution expert: Police must set record straight on baby’s death.
DEWI EVANS PAEDIATRIC CONSULTING LIMITED
Company number 07341254
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07341254/officers
Politics
Dr Evans has been described as a longstanding member of Plaid Cymru, and in 2019 stood unsuccessfully to be national chair of the party. He also stood for the party at a 1991 by-election and again at the 1992 general election, but was not elected on either occasion. [43]
Dr. Dewi Evans is a very strange man: a summary of some concerns
Dr. Dewi Evans is a very strange man, and alongside the accused, he was the central witness in perhaps the most disturbing serial murder trial in England’s history.
I am in neither camp in this case, except that I do think there is potentially a basis for reasonable doubt. I have no idea whether Lucy Letby actually harmed any babies. I think only she will ever know that – and even she may not be sure herself.
I will say that if I were in the pro-guilt camp, I really would want somebody from Cheshire Police or the CPS to have a ‘quiet word’ with Dr. Evans and very firmly tell him to shut his trap. Over the past year since the verdicts, he has become an embarrassment to the prosecution case. There is a saying: discretion is the better part of valour, the relevance of that here being that while it is brave to confront difficulties and challenges, sometimes it is wiser to keep your head down and steer away from it.
There is another piece of wisdom he should heed. When your ears are burning, it’s tempting to respond, but sometimes it really is better to ‘maintain a dignified silence’ and say nothing. He really should have said nothing at all to the media and just let his evidence do the talking.
Some of the broad concerns I have about him encompass both the man himself and the substance, such as it is, of his evidence at trial.
(i). I am confused about what exactly Dr. Evans’ role was at trial because he is actually on record denying that he was an expert witness. During cross-examination concerning the death of Baby A, he stated: “I call myself an independent medical witness, not an expert”. This is very confusing because Dr. Evans was not being called on by the prosecution to give evidence as a witness of fact. This was the trial of a criminal case against Lucy Letby, not an inquiry into the police investigation itself. Just to be clear, medical doctors often are called as witnesses of fact in all sorts of legal cases, including criminal trials, where they can give factual evidence or some interpretation of evidence relevant to the trial. This is common where someone concerned with the case is or was a patient of the doctor. In this capacity, the doctor is acting as a ‘professional witness’, which is a type of witness of fact. Is this what Dr. Evans means, so that he was a professional witness on behalf of the police? The problem is that Dr. Evans did not treat any of the patients (the babies), therefore he was not in a position to provide first-hand evidence as would be expected from a witness of fact.
I’ve noticed that the phrase ‘skilled witness’ has crept into English legal lexicon. This suggests a distinction between an expert, being one possessing an extraordinary knowledge of a field or specialism, and a skilled person, who can practice or perform the relevant field or specialism. But really, we are not talking about boilermaking here. What is the use to the court in this case of a skilled witness in the matter of neo-natal medical care? Probably minimal, because that was not the evidence needed. An expert was required.
The Court of Appeal repeatedly refers to Dr. Evans throughout its written judgment as a medical expert, both directly and in allusion – see amongst others paragraphs 4, 15, 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 98, 99, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 122, 128, of this link: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf .
Paragraph 24 of the judgment refers to Dr. Evans this way:
“Dr Evans remained the lead expert throughout the investigation and trial.”
I agree with the Court of Appeal. The only conceivable capacity in which Dr. Evans could participate would be as an expert witness, yet he tried to suggest that he was not an expert. If he was not an expert, then what was his role in the trial and why was his evidence put before the jury at all and later relied on by the judge when summing-up for the jury, and later still by the Court of Appeal?
(ii). The claim to be ‘independent’ is not supported by the facts, especially as viewed with the benefit of hindsight, having seen Dr. Evans’ disposition from right after the first trial. Dr. Evans knows that he was embedded in the police investigation and the police depended on him for their detective conclusions. Some of this is not in itself unusual. It has long been the case that experts for the prosecution will have been involved in liaison and co-operation with police officers often from an early stage. But his evidence was pivotal to the whole case: without him, there is nothing. In a real sense, he was the prosecutor and he knows that his work at the investigative stage was not blind reviewed. He willingly agreed to be called as an expert witness, thus advising the court, yet some of these cases rested on his opinions alone. Then, after the convictions, he decided to act as a partisan defender of the prosecution in the media and even suggested that Lucy Letby was responsible for more deaths that should be investigated. These are not the actions of an independent, sceptical, measured, rational expert to the court, but of a partisan person. His recent media statements give the impression, fairly or not, of someone who is still partisan and trying to make the evidence fit a conclusion.
(iii). Paragraphs 100 and 101 of the Court of Appeal judgment set out critical comments about Dr. Evans’ practice as a medico-legal expert, including scathing comments from a judge of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Jackson LJ. I have defended Dr. Evans on this point, because he averred under oath that he had only acted as advisor to a party in the litigation, not as an expert witness, however the comments are still damaging to Dr. Evans and of some relevance because they do accord with concerns expressed about him in this case. It could well be that in defence of his conduct in the appeal case dealt with by Jackson, LJ, Dr. Evans was telling the truth as he saw it but that in fact he had misunderstood the situation because he does not fully understand his role as a medico-legal expert and has a tendency to overreach and become partisan and dogmatic, something picked up on by Jackson, LJ.
(iv). Without wishing for this to get too personal, if the prosecution or the defence in a murder case are going to have a crucial expert witness at trial, I’d like it to be a boring person. An eccentric is forgivable if he’s brilliant, but brilliance was not required here. Medicine is hard, but it is not nuclear physics or quantum mathematics. You don’t need to be particularly intelligent to do it. The nature of the expert evidence was pretty ordinary. The issues are only whether it is credible and how the opposing side challenge it. Dr. Evans does not pass the Boring Test. He is colourful and somewhat narcissistic, an attention-seeker. He is a political animal. He seems to enjoy being interviewed on TV and radio and by the press. He likes being the centre of attention. While serving as an elected councillor, he once said that sex with children should be decriminalised. These things worry me. Does Dr. Evans really have the right temperament for an expert witness?
(v). In his media appearances, Dr. Evans presents as too partisan for my liking and too certain in his opinions. He is a believer in Lucy Letby’s guilt, which I find obnoxious, not because I hold any strong view on Lucy Letby’s guilt or innocence, but because I think his stance conflicts with his professional role. He was not appointed to the jury, so it is not for him to have a declared opinion on such matters. His role was that of medico-legal expert, specifically to advise and assist the court by providing an expert clinical opinion on causes of death and harm, based on his knowledge and past experience in the treatment of neo-natal babies and the management of neo-natal units, and his post-retirement experience as an expert forensic reviewer of paediatric cases generally. This does not extend to giving us his tuppence worth on whether she did it or not. He is of course quite entitled to his opinion, but it should remain private. By making his opinion public, especially in the manner he has done, he has in effect been seen to usurp the jury. It almost implies he was there in court as a prosecution advocate, persuading the judge, jury and anybody who would listen that Lucy Letby was guilty as sin, but that was not his role.
(vi). Why does he need to go on the airwaves and in print to defend his evidence? His evidence at trial either stands up to scrutiny based on present medical knowledge or it does not. If his evidence was strong, why would he need to go to so much effort to defend it? If the convictions are sound, Lucy Letby is going nowhere. The whole thing has that sense of a Shakespearean trap about it. It’s as if he is projecting his own insecurities in a very public manner. Of course, in his defence we should remember that if public allegations are not responded to in a public manner, they can often dominate a publicly-accepted narrative irrespective of truth. I am not suggesting that Dr. Evans should be expected to roll-over. He is a professional man and has the right to guard his reputation – up to and including engaging defamation lawyers, if necessary and if he is so inclined – my criticism is more about the way he has gone about this, in that he has reinforced the criticisms, especially the issue of his role at trial and whether he confined himself to his proper duties to the court. He has raised more questions than he has answered.
Three former senior leaders at the NHS hospital where the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby worked have been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
Three former bosses of UK nurse Lucy Letby, convicted of killing babies, arrested on suspicion of manslaughter
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/01/europe/lucy-letby-case-arrests-manslaughter-intl
https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r1374
https://www.itv.com/watch/lucy-letby-beyond-reasonable-doubt/10a6860a0001B
listen to this song.