Experts & analyses

Background: Retired consultant paediatrician, formerly of Singleton Hospital, Swansea. Approached Cheshire Police offering his services on the case; had not worked in routine neonatal intensive care for over a decade at the time of trial.

Key claim: Diagnosed air embolism, insulin administration and air-in-stomach as mechanisms of harm across the indictment.

Criticism: Methodology has been rejected by the 14-member Shoo Lee International Expert Panel (2025). A family court judge separately described an unrelated Evans expert report in 2023 as 'worthless'.

Background: Consultant paediatrician based in Guernsey. Used largely to corroborate Dr Evans's conclusions at trial.

Key claim: Supported the air-embolism and insulin theories.

Criticism: Independent neonatologists argue that her conclusions rest on the same methodology as Dr Evans's and share its limitations.

Background: Professor Emeritus of Paediatrics, University of Toronto. Author of the 1989 air-embolism paper cited by the prosecution.

Key claim: The skin signs described at trial do not match the findings in his own paper. No medical evidence of deliberate harm in any case reviewed.

Background: Professor of Neonatal Medicine at Imperial College London; past President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

Key claim: Has publicly called for an urgent review of the evidence.

Background: Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Leiden University. Previously instrumental in overturning the wrongful conviction of nurse Lucia de Berk in the Netherlands.

Key claim: The shift-rota chart shown to the jury is a textbook example of statistical selection bias (the Texas sharpshooter fallacy).

Background: Consultant clinical biochemist and expert in immunoassay interference.

Key claim: The Roche insulin immunoassay is unreliable for forensic use and its results should not have been treated as proof of poisoning.