Basically, he wasn't about to watch the gravy train leave the station. I would find that somewhat acceptable evidence, it's common enough of a situation. The "not consistent with just a fall", wouldn't carry as much weight, anything interpretational, like that, is being condescending. It's sort of like, "We're from the government, trust us.", it's too vague. Especially a year after the fact. Would you want to be judged or have your children judged on that type of "evidence". If something looked like it was done by say, a baseball bat, say a baseball bat, not "inconsistent with a fall".
My understanding of the situation was something transpired that caused her to have a heart attack, which went untreated, which led to the coma. Thanks for your info.