I too am very puzzled by this and I have been back and forth over the reports to no avail. The indication is that the TPN bag was changed at 10am when the line tissued. As you say, this would have meant a new giving set and should have also meant a new TPN bag, and the reports seem to indicate that this is what happened and a stock bag was used. This would be long after LL's shift had ended, I assume? In which case, how did a random stock bag also contain insulin? I am not buying the line contamination for a minute, especially as they also state that the quantity of insulin required to produce those readings would have been around 0.58ml/hr. That could not be accounted for by a trace contamination. This second bag issue is very important in my opinion, as far from pointing to her guilt, the apparent contamination of another bag resulting in the same low glucose readings at a time when she wasn't there, could establish her innocence.
I think your meaning was quite clear. As I think I said before, never do jury service. You have only heard a fraction of the evidence, all from the Prosecution and none from the Defence.
If this case is so clear cut why were no cases flagged as suspicious at the time and why did it take so long to bring charges against her?
The fact that someone has been charged with a crime does not mean they have been found guilty; everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence. I may believe her to be guilty after I have heard all the evidence - but not on the basis that there is "no smoke without fire"
