I notice nothing was said in your artice about the first Jury of his peers who judged him Not Guilty.
If someone writes a book about, say a bombing, or a murder, that does not necessarily make them "the" murderer. If so, our prison system would be full of writers of fiction books and magazine articles.
And by the way, the prison system is full of individuals who people thought were guilty, and were not, as has been proven several times over the past years by DNA evidence. If you were a juror, and you had a doubt about a persons guilt or innocence, would you err on the side of guilty just to save face later?
A civil trial I believe if I recall only calls for a preponderence of evidence for a person to be deemed guilty. Being an estranged husband of an individual and already having a histoy of disagreement does not make you a murderer, but you could surely lose you rear end and all the fixtures in a civil trial based on the same evidence. In a civil tral the glove doesn't have to fit and might not have to be the same color.