Exactly my question!!!
Per the article, the prosecutors claim that the dominatrix confessed (presumably telling them about the heart attack). The article didn't seem to mention any evidence that any crime occurred, much less that the dominatrix committed it, other than investigators' recollections of the alleged confession.
If that is true, it would explain why the dominatrix wasn't convicted, though it wouldn't explain why she had to stand trial in the first place. Surely the prosecutor can't have thought the investigators' recollections in and of themselves would be sufficient for conviction!?
ok, now explain to me why she wasnt convicted!! chopping up the body and dumping it is worth a charge of some sort!!