I think you do. You can't just tell the forum that you've seen a report which claims X,Y, or Z. How does the forum know you're telling the truth? You may just be interpreting it to suit yourself.
I've literally just told you what my source is: the toxicology report and the surrounding facts. I'm not making a point for or against Jeremy here. I'm just providing a factual account of things.
Looking at this factually, you can't say she was sedated. Nobody can say that. She was on a tranquilising antipsychotic, not a sedative. The drug did potentially have a sedative effect, among its adverse side-effects, and she was contraindicated, so it is possible she was sedated and therefore somnolent to some degree. But we can't say that she was. When Dr. Ferguson and the appeal court say that, they are just plain wrong. It doesn't matter how many universities they have attended and how many letters they have after their names. They're wrong. If you're wrong, you're wrong.
One problem in this case is that assertions that are a load of rubbish have become treated as hard fact because people don't check things.