But the prosecution didn’t did they. The prosecutor himself admitted that they couldn’t prove that it was actually a murder. The prosecution could have either tried to prove murder or accident but not both. They stressed murder but couldn’t prove even cause of death. They tied the hands of the jury by trying to prove murder or homicide but didn’t have enough evidence to prove it wasn’t an accident. Thus the dilemma of the jury which put them in a box of having to decide “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a murder was committed which even the prosecutor admitted they couldn’t prove.
“The prosecutor himself admitted that they couldn’t prove that it was actually a murder.”
An outrageous claim,,,give the quote with a link.
“The prosecution could have either tried to prove murder or accident but not both. “
LOL, you obviously didn’t watch the trial. They charged and proved murder with evidence.
“They stressed murder but couldn’t prove even cause of death.”
You don’t have to prove cause of death to prove murder...(ok, you obviously don’t know what you are talking about)