It's not my place to post an opinion on the verdict reached in this case, so I'll keep it to myself.
Somewhat off-topic: I have just finished reading (coincidentally) two fictional books, both about abducted and murdered girls. The authors seem to do their research. The one that struck home is where the child had been buried for three months and no cause of death could be determined by the autopsy. It was written that unless there had been damage to the bones from a gunshot, stabbing, or blunt force, all soft tissue was gone and no evidence remained that would lead to a determination of e.g. sexual assault, poisoning, strangulation, etc. Suffocation (I read) was impossible to determine after this length of time.
Unless I'm mistaken, a buried body remains intact longer than one left out in the elements. So, if this book is to be believed, it's quite possible that a cause of death for Tori may never be determined. There is the chance that the writer was mistaken and that if she was drugged, toxicology tests may be able to find traces in bones, but I don't know. If bones were fractured, there is another chance.
The question remains that if the autopsies are inconclusive, will a judge take the word of one of the accused as to cause of death and how will this all affect the verdicts? While I recognize that anyone proven to be responsible for the abduction will be equally guilty of murder, it still concerns me that these trials may become a "he said/she said" situation and get tossed out due to lack of physical evidence.
JMO
