Since this is sort of hijacking the Not Happy thread (if that is possible). I heard on the news a few minutes ago that the prosecution was never able to prove a cause of death. I haven't been following that closely so I didn't realize that. This makes it easy to understand how the jury came out where it did. If you can't even prove that a person was murdered, how can you possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any given individual person murdered them? It would be like having someone on trial for stealing, when you couldn't prove that anything was actually stolen. Anyone else hear anything to the contrary? Thoughts?