That is likely where it is hung up. I can almost guarantee you, the exact same points being made here, are the same points being made there.
It's also likely that the sides are drawn primarily down gender lines.
Manslaughter, hinges on cause, rather than intent. Did he cause her death?
The men will likely take a factual, chronological approach where he de-escalated and separated, and after that, there is some onus on her to act reasonably, and he couldn't possibly have predicted that she would go over the rail.
The women, will likely take a more emotional approach, whereby of course she was in fear, and his words and threats literally forced her over the rail.
Thus, the question regarding words being force. Both sides are likely entrenched, and it boiled down to both sides looking for that legal technicality to force the issue.
Given that the judge essentially said no, words are not force, it will undoubtedly embolden the side that believes if he didn't push her physically, he didn't push her.
The only outcome, if I analyzed it correctly, can only be not guilty, or hung jury. It is a very slim chance the side that was validated by the judge, and therefore the law, will ignore that direct support. They will wield it as gospel from that point on.