I've seen her widower mention the possibility(by his own reasoning, not indicated by any as yet existent evidence) of a stroke. Otherwise the evidence doesn't look good at all for anyone trying to clear her name. I don't think that's a 100% lock to call her indisputably guilty because the law can obviously be apallingly devious when it comes to determining what is and isn't admissable evidence especially concerning: a) cases that the community will have strong opinions about(rape, murder, stuff affecting vulnerable parties like kids, seniors, the disabled, animals, etc.) and b) high profile cases(stuff involving sensationalistic appeal like murder, multiple deaths, celebrities, local figures with clout like businessmen and politicians.)
All that aside, who ever went ahead with the title is an absolute asshole and nothing short of it since according to the father of the girl whose own words were used for the title, he strongly opposed her (possibly)last words being used for the title. If the father is correct I find the people who made that decision to be unforgivably heartless.