There's a great gulf between believing that a criminal act occurred, and being able to prove it in court beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. In other words, it is possible to believe that someone can get away with murder, as might well have happened here.
I'm trying to figure out how hubby would have ever known that she would not recover from her state when he called 9-11. If you can convince me of that, I'd say there was a possible criminal act.
The burden of proof for a criminal charge is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond the shadow of a doubt" or "beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt."
When the evidence is not on your side just keep insinuating as though it is. Bush will reap the hatred of the fanatics for not playing ball with them and trying to railroad a innocent (of murder) man.