[Just mythoughts]

Circumstantial evidence can be some of the strongest evidence. Footprints in the sand are circumstantial evidence but it's pretty conclusive that someone walked there. In this case, though, it's the hearsay which is the problem. The guy was deprived of the right to cross-examination. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule but this is a stretch.

I am not a lawyer. Who is it that this guy did not get to cross-examine?

[circlecity]

"I am not a lawyer. Who is it that this guy did not get to cross-examine?"

The deceased wives. People testified that they were told this and that by these wives before they died. So essentially, the supposed testimony of the dead wives gets into the record but he doesn't have any ability to cross-examine these deceased "witnesses". He is deprived of the right to confront these accusers.