BECKLEY, WV (LOOTPRESS) – The murder trial of Natalie Cochran neared its conclusion as both the prosecution and defense delivered their closing arguments, setting the stage for jury deliberations.
Prosecution’s Closing Argument: Motive, Means, and Opportunity
Prosecutor Ashley Acord argued that Cochran had clear motive, means, and opportunity to kill her husband, Michael Cochran. Acord described how Michael, 38, had grown increasingly anxious about their government contract business, particularly as a deadline approached and the promised funds failed to materialize. Facing exposure of her fraudulent scheme, Acord contended that Natalie had two choices: “come clean or take him out.”
Acord reinforced the state’s medical evidence, reminding jurors that two experts testified the only plausible explanation for Michael’s severe hypoglycemia—given his lack of diabetes—was an insulin overdose. She pointed to Natalie’s actions on the night of his collapse, highlighting how she called friends and family for help but repeatedly refused to take him to the hospital, even as his condition worsened.
The prosecutor also dismissed the defense’s claim that Michael had been abusing steroids, emphasizing that no such drugs were found in the home.
Defense’s Counterargument: A Case Without Proof
Defense attorney Matthew Victor countered that the state had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Natalie murdered her husband. He suggested that Michael was not an unwitting victim but rather an active participant in their financial scheme. If the jury believed this, Victor argued, the state’s case would crumble.
Victor emphasized that the government had not definitively established how or why Michael died. He reminded jurors that three medical experts could not determine a cause of death due to the body’s decomposition. He also pointed to Michael’s medical history, which included conditions such as encephalopathy, an enlarged heart, and a history of experimenting with unregulated drugs and supplements.
While acknowledging that Natalie was guilty of financial crimes and infidelity—calling her a “bad girl” involved in various “shenanigans”—Victor insisted she was not a murderer.
State’s Rebuttal: A ‘Blizzard’ of Circumstantial Evidence
Prosecutor Tom Truman delivered the state’s rebuttal, urging jurors to focus on two key numbers:
• “0” – The amount of evidence supporting the defense’s theory that Michael was a sickly man.
• “21” – Michael’s critically low blood glucose level, which, in a non-diabetic, could only result from a fatal dose of insulin.
Truman emphasized that Natalie, a trained pharmacist specializing in diabetes, knew how to administer insulin lethally. He dismissed the defense’s claim that she stored insulin for a friend’s diabetic son, arguing instead that she borrowed it the day of the crime to cover up her fraudulent activities.
Describing the prosecution’s case as a “blizzard” of circumstantial evidence, Truman urged the jury to convict Natalie Cochran of first-degree murder.
Rebuttal Witness: Fraud Continued After Michael’s Death
Following the defense’s closing argument, prosecutors called one final rebuttal witness—retired West Virginia State Trooper Robert Hinzmen. Hinzmen testified that Cochran continued soliciting investments in her Ponzi scheme even after her husband’s death. He also detailed text messages in which Natalie lied to Michael about millions of dollars supposedly being deposited into their account.
With closing arguments completed, the case now rests in the hands of the jury.
