It is interesting that no court was willing to draw your conclusion or even your inference with a much lower standard of proof. To convict the husband of "attempted murder" would obviously require (as Robert Blake found out today) proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, here if the judge were inclined to draw your inference, he would only need proof by a preponderance and, arguably, only a reasonable suspicion which taken together with other facts and circumstances, might dislodge the husband as decision-maker. Yet, there is no evidence that I know of that he (or any appellate court) did that.
Again, judges use inferences every day to resolve conflicting claims of fact and are usually quite good at it. Yet no one in the judicial system has ever drawn the inference you do. Do you see why I have my suspicions on the inference?