I'll add that one to my list of three "must reads" if I ever get a chance to read a book again. =D
This is where I'm confused. If Mike S. did all these terrible things to her and there is all kinds of proof, then why did they go after him? Whose decision is it to investigate? Does someone have to press charges first? If so, why haven't her parents?
The problem is that by the time the parents were aware of the bone scan results, an assault charge or even attempted murder charge for Michael's actions in 1990 would have been impossible due to the statute of limitations. In fact, since Terri was still alive, there wasn't anything Michael could have been charged with in connection with that assault; consequently, the government had no interest in trying to collect and preserve any evidence related to it. If the autopsy concludes that Terri died as a consequence of something that happened in 1990, then it might be appropriate to open murder charges except that by now most of the evidence that would be necessary has been destroyed.
I would suggest that the statute of limitation rules need to be rewritten for cases like this, so that the 'clock' on an assault charge wouldn't run out unless or until it became clear whether or not an assault was fatal. Otherwise a very awkward situation arises where evidence exists of malevolent action which will not represent a chargeable crime unless some future event occurs (e.g. the death of a victim). It's not possible to legally seize and hold evidence indefinitely without even an allegation of a chargeable crime, even in cases where the evidence may be necessary to prosecute what may become Murder.