Also regarding instructions to the jury, this is what the judge said about the defence:
'The defendant says she did nothing inappropriate, let alone harmful to any child. Her case is that the sudden collapses and death were, or may have been, from natural causes or for some unascertained reason or from some failure to provide appropriate care, and they were not attributable to any deliberate harmful act by her.'
So all the jury have to go on for the cause of death is a lot of expert testimony (and except for Dr Evans, the defence weren't able to cast doubt on any of the other experts like Dr Bohin, Dr Marnerides, Prof Arthurs etc). AND the say so of LL on denying what the experts say happened (And for the insulin cases she did agree with them). Since LL has already been proven to lie on the stand for minor things (pyjamas, social life, isolation, go commando, affair with Dr NN etc), her own credibility is shot.
So if the defence had had any corroborating evidence (experts, messages to friends or colleagues, DATIX reports, diary entries, post it notes, friends and colleagues who testified on her behalf) to support:
1) Natural causes
2) Some unascertained reason
3) Some failure of care
This would have helped cast doubt in the jury's head about the prosecution expert evidence. In the absence of it - the only feasible explanation is going to be the prosecution expert witnesses cause of death. Unless of course someone disregards all the expert evidence because they think it was indeed a conspiracy. But I can't imagine conspiracy theorists would make up a majority of the jury!
