Jay Young

They were unable to find insulin in Michael's body when they exhumed it months later. Cut to 2023. The prosecution decides they want to exhume Michael's body again to test his remains with more sophisticated tests. And this time, the pathologist that the state hired to examine the remains ruled that Michael's manner of death was homicide.

They were unable to find insulin in Michael's body when they exhumed it months later. Cut to 2023. The prosecution decides they want to exhume Michael's body again to test his remains with more sophisticated tests. And this time, the pathologist that the state hired to examine the remains ruled that Michael's manner of death was homicide.

Now, the state went even further and had an endocrinologist review some of the paperwork. And she determined that the cause of death was most likely due to insulin injections. So there was no trace evidence of insulin.

Now, the state went even further and had an endocrinologist review some of the paperwork. And she determined that the cause of death was most likely due to insulin injections. So there was no trace evidence of insulin.

Now, the state went even further and had an endocrinologist review some of the paperwork. And she determined that the cause of death was most likely due to insulin injections. So there was no trace evidence of insulin.

You know, Andrea, you've been through this so many times. I have, too. It's a very solemn occasion. Everybody's very quiet. Everyone is really deferential. The prospective jurors were sitting in the jury box, and then the prosecution enters, sits down at their desk, and then in comes Natalie Cochran. And you can see Natalie looking over at the prospective jurors.

You know, Andrea, you've been through this so many times. I have, too. It's a very solemn occasion. Everybody's very quiet. Everyone is really deferential. The prospective jurors were sitting in the jury box, and then the prosecution enters, sits down at their desk, and then in comes Natalie Cochran. And you can see Natalie looking over at the prospective jurors.

You know, Andrea, you've been through this so many times. I have, too. It's a very solemn occasion. Everybody's very quiet. Everyone is really deferential. The prospective jurors were sitting in the jury box, and then the prosecution enters, sits down at their desk, and then in comes Natalie Cochran. And you can see Natalie looking over at the prospective jurors.

You can only wonder what's going through her mind.

You can only wonder what's going through her mind.

You can only wonder what's going through her mind.

Yeah, that's exactly what the prosecution said. And by and large, the prospective jurors said, no, I'm OK. I understand that you have direct evidence and you have circumstantial evidence. And one is not more important than the other. That was the general consensus on the part of the prospective panel.

Yeah, that's exactly what the prosecution said. And by and large, the prospective jurors said, no, I'm OK. I understand that you have direct evidence and you have circumstantial evidence. And one is not more important than the other. That was the general consensus on the part of the prospective panel.

Yeah, that's exactly what the prosecution said. And by and large, the prospective jurors said, no, I'm OK. I understand that you have direct evidence and you have circumstantial evidence. And one is not more important than the other. That was the general consensus on the part of the prospective panel.

There's no question that the prosecution has to work with a case that does not have direct evidence. But what they do have is a defendant who is a convicted felon serving 11 years. And if she can defraud her family, loved ones, investors, there's no telling what she can do. That's going to be their argument.

There's no question that the prosecution has to work with a case that does not have direct evidence. But what they do have is a defendant who is a convicted felon serving 11 years. And if she can defraud her family, loved ones, investors, there's no telling what she can do. That's going to be their argument.

There's no question that the prosecution has to work with a case that does not have direct evidence. But what they do have is a defendant who is a convicted felon serving 11 years. And if she can defraud her family, loved ones, investors, there's no telling what she can do. That's going to be their argument.

They argue Michael was well aware of the fraudulent nature of the business. So Natalie would have no reason to want to kill him.

They argue Michael was well aware of the fraudulent nature of the business. So Natalie would have no reason to want to kill him.

They argue Michael was well aware of the fraudulent nature of the business. So Natalie would have no reason to want to kill him.