Spratsmum,
Thanks. Maybe my thinking is incorrect, but I'd have thought that if tox was negative, they would say as much, because that would change nothing. Urrgh, frustrating.
I don't know what they would be getting a negative for though. I would assume that if someone was found dead in a fertiliser factory and the assumption had been that he was killed through lack of ventilation, then a toxicology report that ruled that line of inquiry out would be newsworthy, but that is not the case here. Again if the rumours of drugs being used to put Allison to sleep was widely held and had been part of the police investigation, then I could understand if they said, high levels of whatever were found in Allison Baden-Clay's blood.
As I understand the process (and I am no scientist and have no knowledge really, just a laymens understanding of the term) I would think we may find out at the trial or even when someone is charged. eg.
"It is alleged that the large amount of chocolate found in the stomach of the victim came from a stash of easter eggs lying on the floor at the home of the accussed. It is further alleged that the chocolate was force fed to the victim by the accussed who was well aware of the effect this would have on Mrs Baden Clay's severe allergies" That sort of thing.
I am not trying to be flippant with the chocolate - i couldn't think of anything was less improbable.