Why her role matters
The purpose of a second-opinion expert in a criminal trial is to provide independent corroboration of the first expert’s conclusions. The jury is meant to weigh the convergence of two experts working from separate methodological frames as evidence that the conclusion is robust. For this to function as the criminal-justice system intends, the second opinion has to be genuinely independent.
Dr Bohin’s evidence was presented as this kind of second opinion. Independent review since 2024 has identified that her reading worked within the methodological frame Dr Evans had already established — same forensic-from-hypothesis approach, same absence of blinded differential diagnosis, same starting assumption that the cluster required a criminal explanation.
Professional background
- Consultant paediatrician based in Guernsey. Practises on a much smaller scale than UK tertiary NICU centres.
- Instructed as the Crown’s second-opinion expert in the Letby trial.
- Gave evidence at the original 2022–2023 trial.
Why this is a circularity concern
When a second expert is instructed to review conclusions the first expert has already reached, and adopts the same methodology the first expert used, the second opinion is not second-independent-opinion — it is same-methodology-second-clinician. The jury hears “two experts agree” and weighs that as corroboration. The reality is that the shared methodology constrains both experts to the same conclusion, because the methodology itself is the factor driving the conclusion.
The Shoo Lee Panel’s case-by-case review is the independent second opinion the criminal-justice process should have had. Fourteen senior international specialists applying a different methodology reach the opposite conclusion on the same casebook. That is what genuine independent second-opinion review looks like.