Had he been convicted of his wife's murder, then absolutely not. But he was not and his 7 or more decades of work should have gotten at least the briefest of inclusion.

And, I say this thinking it is more likely than not that he may have been guilty, but agree with the verdict that it was not proven.

Wanted to avoid controversy. Otoh, maybe it was just that they didn’t have enough time to include mention of him, given the recency of his death.

That said (and the OJ case notwithstanding), I do not equate a civil trial loss with a criminal conviction for murder, at all. Arguably there could be many reasons for a jury to hold him civilly accountable for her death (leaving her alone in the car in a fairly dangerous area for example) without the actual equivalence of being directly responsible and personally involved in her death. These are all academic arguments, granted, but still. Civil convictions as an attempt to address the injustice of criminal acquittals have always seemed to be quite the mismatch-- even if it is all we can offer.