Of course it goes both ways, and would be equally wrong, but there are distinct differences, most importantly, it was 1989 which were completely different social norms. It seems all his life goals were met and she was a big part of that success, then he murdered HER, but she didn’t die until thirty-seven years later. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to acquit due to temporary insanity caused by a user husband and greedy younger woman.
The charge was wrong, should have been voluntary manslaughter under extreme emotional distubance or temporary insanity. I guess they could ignore the premeditation part it seems.
According to her.
...and she was the same one who murdered him and another woman.
So... to you, infidelity is grounds for murder.
Knowing women cheat far, far more often, they, like the jury, may disagree with you.