Nick Healey :: "xkcd 386"

Finally, this is being exposed. Thank you so very much for this extremely important article to @sarahknapton and @Telegraph. telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/1… People often ask me why I have never gone into medico-legal expert work, even though I have a law degree. This is exactly why. On paper, expert witnesses are “independent” and owe their duty to the court. It sounds great. In reality, the system is adversarial - and adversarial systems reward resources, repetition, and narrative control. The prosecution has institutional funding and the ability to instruct multiple experts to reinforce the same case theory. They are also able to cherry pick experts (I addressed this issue at length in my law degree dissertation in fact). Example - if I give the prosecution a report that doesn’t support their narrative, they can bin it. This is at the foundation of repeated miscarriages of justice when it comes to cases involving complex scientific or medical evidence - and not just in the court systems! NHS Trusts employ the same selective listening tactics when they want a convenient scapegoat for failures - @MartynPitman can tell you more about that from personal experience - and I can confirm that having examined it, his story runs in identical patterns to the evidence of many others I have gathered through supporting genuine whistleblowers over the last 11 years. Going back to the courts, however, when a well-funded group of experts presents a unified opinion, it carries weight simply because of the numbers. The defence? Completely different situation. Legal aid budgets are tight. Expert hours are capped. Rates are lower. In many cases, they can only afford one specialist who would often be a clinician who is not experienced at navigating the criminal justice system. So when you end up with one legally inexperienced expert saying X and 7 "professional witness" (ie legally experienced) experts saying Y in front of a jury, what do you realistically expect a jury to do? They are not neonatologists. They are not scientists. They are not statisticians. They can’t spend months interrogating methodology. Human instinct says - ten experts’ opinions matter more than one. That’s social psychology. That's how the witch trials happened. We seemingly have learned nothing from them. When someone publicly talks about having “won” or “lost” cases, it shows how adversarial the mindset actually is. (And this is what Dr Dewi Evans said – only ever lost one case (interestingly, when he worked for the defence…..). Public statements. How embarrassing for the legal justice system – this in itself should warrant a quash of Letby’s convictions, shouldn’t it? He, after all, was the star expert whose reports started this off - and were merely peer-reviewed. @ccrcupdate If Dr Evans was truly independent and assisting the court, what exactly was he talking about when he referred to "winning"? And please let's also remember - once this process commences and there is an innocent party - be it a whistleblower, be it a scapegoat for any other reason - whether one "wins" or "loses", it’s the process that is the punishment. Years of investigation. Public vilification. Suspension. Financial ruin. Reputational destruction. Even without a conviction, your life as you knew it is as good as being effectively over. That creates perverse incentives for what are almost always the actual wrong-doers - when I say "wrong-doers" - I don't necessarily mean with intent. Plenty of people do wrong things whilst in fact thinking they are right. It appears that the COCH consultants all thought the care they provided was reasonable, if not excellent. There are 16 neonatologists out there, myself included, who don't quite agree. But... as far as those who think they did nothing wrong are concerned, the process alone against whoever they are vilifying creates distraction away from the original problem of the care, doesn't it? And let's face it - allegations alone can achieve reputational damage, regardless of whether the evidence stacks up, as long as they are repeated by enough people enough times. And that is what the HR process found was happening to Letby. But the jury didn't even get to hear about any of that. Judge Goss didn't allow it. The MoJ victim ends up getting tied up defending themselves whilst no-one ever meaningfully examines the substance of what actually happened. The process then becomes about how many people repeat the same story, how loudly and how confidently - not about whether the underlying analysis stands up to scrutiny. It is such a mess. And it's been going on for years. I am so happy to see it finally exposed. The Letby case is one great example of this. And there is a lot more to come as all these maternity/neonatal and other healthcare scandals unfold. Watch this space. @DavidDavisMP @wesstreeting @PrivateEyeNews @drphilhammond @PeterElston1 @ccrcupdate @VeraBaird @CPSUK @gmcuk @RCPCHtweets @BAPM_Official @NHSGIRFT @NHSEngland @Michelehal7344 @MartynPitman @PeterElston1 @guardian @Channel4News @channel5_tv @CheshireLive @cheshirepolice