Did any expert on panel convened by dr shoo lee comment on INQ0000844 – Blood Test Results of Child F shows blood glucose of 999mmol/l thirlwall inquiry

1. INQ0000844 is in the Inquiry evidence bundle, but the supplied file is a results listing, not an annotated expert report

The Thirlwall Inquiry site and its evidence archive list INQ0000844 as "Blood Test Results of Child F" and link to a PDF of that exhibit ^[1][2][4]. The available PDF appears to be the raw blood-test results assembled for criminal proceedings rather than a forensic or expert opinion paper with commentary; the public metadata and listing for that exhibit do not include an attached expert statement or a transcript showing expert discussion within that single document ^[2][1].

2. Public hearing materials that reference INQ0000844 do not, in the cited sources, record Dr Shoo Lee convening a panel or that experts commented on this specific exhibit

A week-4 oral evidence page for the Inquiry lists INQ0000844 among many documents considered at that hearing session, but the summary point on the website is a docket-like reference and does not reproduce oral testimony, expert statements, or attribute commentary to Dr Shoo Lee or any named panel members in the pages provided ^[3]. The Thirlwall Inquiry main site provides general information about the Inquiry's scope and evidence repository but does not in the excerpts given identify Dr Shoo Lee or a convened expert panel discussing INQ0000844 ^[4].

3. No supplied source names "Dr Shoo Lee" or an expert panel in connection with INQ0000844 — reporting gap, not proof of absence

Among the documents and web pages supplied, none contain the name "Dr Shoo Lee" or a record of that person convening a panel, nor do they record expert commentary tied to the INQ0000844 exhibit; the listings are catalogue entries and an evidence PDF without attributed expert analysis ^[1][2][3][4]. That absence within the supplied material is a reporting limitation: it cannot be taken as definitive proof that no such comments were ever made elsewhere in the Inquiry record, only that they are not present in the documents provided here ^[1][2].

4. How to interpret the available evidence and what it implies about the original question

Because the supplied evidence consists of the named exhibit and listing references in the Inquiry docket, and because there is no linked expert statement or hearing transcript in these sources attributing comment to an expert panel convened by a Dr Shoo Lee, the accurate conclusion is that the provided material does not show any expert on a panel convened by Dr Shoo Lee commenting on INQ0000844 ^[1][2][3]. A different outcome might appear if transcripts of oral hearings, separate expert statements, or other inquiry exhibits naming Dr Shoo Lee or panel members are consulted; those items were not included among the supplied sources ^[4].

5. Unresolved questions and recommended next steps for verification

To move beyond the limits of the current evidence, the next steps are to search the Inquiry's oral evidence transcripts and the full evidence index for the name "Dr Shoo Lee" and to examine hearing transcripts or expert statements that may reference INQ0000844 specifically; the Thirlwall Inquiry publishes hearing materials and evidence lists which would be the primary place to locate any attributed commentary not present in the provided files ^[4][3]. Until such additional materials are reviewed, the correct, source-bound answer remains: no supplied document shows any expert on a panel convened by Dr Shoo Lee commenting on INQ0000844 — and the supplied sources do not themselves name Dr Shoo Lee ^[1][2][3][4].