Jay Young

They concluded that the first autopsy, done seven months after Michael's passing, was in fact the correct ruling that the manner and cause of death could not be determined.

They concluded that the first autopsy, done seven months after Michael's passing, was in fact the correct ruling that the manner and cause of death could not be determined.

They concluded that the first autopsy, done seven months after Michael's passing, was in fact the correct ruling that the manner and cause of death could not be determined.

Yeah, she did. She basically said, look, there's very little that we can determine from Michael's autopsy.

Yeah, she did. She basically said, look, there's very little that we can determine from Michael's autopsy.

Yeah, she did. She basically said, look, there's very little that we can determine from Michael's autopsy.

Well, I think on the part of the prosecution, they wanted to demonstrate that Natalie had a motive. And Natalie's motive was that Michael was about to uncover the Ponzi scheme that she had created. And so what she decided to do was to kill her husband. And so...

Well, I think on the part of the prosecution, they wanted to demonstrate that Natalie had a motive. And Natalie's motive was that Michael was about to uncover the Ponzi scheme that she had created. And so what she decided to do was to kill her husband. And so...

Well, I think on the part of the prosecution, they wanted to demonstrate that Natalie had a motive. And Natalie's motive was that Michael was about to uncover the Ponzi scheme that she had created. And so what she decided to do was to kill her husband. And so...

The defense tried to take the wind out of the prosecution's sail by saying, Michael knew it was a Ponzi scheme, so Natalie had no motive to kill him. And if you believe that Natalie didn't have motive, then the prosecution's case collapses.

The defense tried to take the wind out of the prosecution's sail by saying, Michael knew it was a Ponzi scheme, so Natalie had no motive to kill him. And if you believe that Natalie didn't have motive, then the prosecution's case collapses.

The defense tried to take the wind out of the prosecution's sail by saying, Michael knew it was a Ponzi scheme, so Natalie had no motive to kill him. And if you believe that Natalie didn't have motive, then the prosecution's case collapses.

Yeah. I mean, I think no one knew what was going to happen. The prosecution made it very clear they had no direct evidence in this case. It was a circumstantial case. Now, they said that they had a mountain of circumstantial evidence, a blizzard of circumstantial evidence. But that was still going to be a stone that they had to get up the mountain. I think everybody was surprised at the outcome.

Yeah. I mean, I think no one knew what was going to happen. The prosecution made it very clear they had no direct evidence in this case. It was a circumstantial case. Now, they said that they had a mountain of circumstantial evidence, a blizzard of circumstantial evidence. But that was still going to be a stone that they had to get up the mountain. I think everybody was surprised at the outcome.

Yeah. I mean, I think no one knew what was going to happen. The prosecution made it very clear they had no direct evidence in this case. It was a circumstantial case. Now, they said that they had a mountain of circumstantial evidence, a blizzard of circumstantial evidence. But that was still going to be a stone that they had to get up the mountain. I think everybody was surprised at the outcome.

Thanks for having me, Andrea.

Thanks for having me, Andrea.

Thanks for having me, Andrea.

The theory is that Natalie was concerned that Michael had discovered the Ponzi scheme and was going to come forward and expose her.

The theory is that Natalie was concerned that Michael had discovered the Ponzi scheme and was going to come forward and expose her.