Main contribution
Endocrinology evidence on the two insulin counts (Babies F and L) at the 2022–2023 trial.
May 2026: Thirlwall Inquiry report delayed to at least September 2026 · six-baby inquests relisted to 2027 · CCRC review active · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.
Conflict-map · Trial prosecution experts
Crown's insulin expert
Endocrinology evidence on the two insulin counts (Babies F and L) at the 2022–2023 trial.
Low insulin-to-C-peptide ratios were diagnostic of exogenous insulin administration.
The GMC opened a fitness-to-practise investigation into Hindmarsh on the same day he began giving evidence at the Letby trial in late 2022; the medical tribunal concluded the allegations 'may have the potential to impact on his ability to act as an expert witness' but the jury was never told. Hindmarsh removed himself from the GMC register through voluntary erasure on 14 November 2024, ending the investigation without a regulatory finding. Independent clinical biochemists (Ismail, Chase, Senn) have separately argued the Roche immunoassay used at trial was not forensically validated and that confirmatory mass spectrometry was not performed.
Cross-reference on the main experts conflict-map page.
Cross-reference on the main experts conflict-map page.
This page is the conflict-map view (role in the Letby case + position on disputed evidence). For the full biographical reference — background, career, publications and public commentary — read the dedicated biography.
Trial prosecution experts.
Lead causation expert at trial
Main contribution: Provided the principal medical-causation narrative across the indictment, diagnosing air embolism, exogenous insulin and gastric-air administration as mechanisms of harm.
Key claim: Skin-discolouration patterns and gas findings were diagnostic of deliberate harm via intravenous air, insulin administration and air-in-stomach.
Criticism: Methodology rejected by the 14-member Shoo Lee International Expert Panel (Feb 2025). Lee himself states the prosecution misapplied his 1989 paper. A family court judge separately described an unrelated Evans expert report as 'worthless' (2023). Self-referred to Cheshire Police; out of routine NICU practice for over a decade at the time of trial.
Related evidence
Second-opinion neonatology expert at trial
Main contribution: Largely corroborated Dr Evans's conclusions at trial.
Key claim: Supported the air-embolism and insulin theories advanced by Dr Evans.
Criticism: Independent neonatologists argue her conclusions rest on the same methodology as Dr Evans's and inherit its limitations — same-methodology-second-clinician rather than independent corroboration.
Related evidence
Reviewing pathologist for the prosecution
Main contribution: Re-read original autopsy material on behalf of the Crown.
Key claim: Identified pathology findings the Crown argued were consistent with the deliberate-harm mechanisms.
Criticism: Independent paediatric-pathology re-readings filed October 2025 (supplementary CCRC submissions) argue the preserved post-mortem material is compatible with natural pathology.
Related evidence