How can it be murder if no body is found?
Discussion
Don't know if this has ever been asked on PH but i was wondering how do people get charged with Murder if a body is never recovered?
Surely even if blood, fibres, dna etc is found it still doesn't prove that a) the person is dead and b) the 'accused' killed them?
Even if someone saw you whacking 7 bells out of someone, and that someone was never seen again it doesn't equal that the person is definitely dead?
I thought courts worked along the 'beyond reasonable doubt' guidelines - how can there ever NOT be doubt if no body is found?
Surely even if blood, fibres, dna etc is found it still doesn't prove that a) the person is dead and b) the 'accused' killed them?
Even if someone saw you whacking 7 bells out of someone, and that someone was never seen again it doesn't equal that the person is definitely dead?
I thought courts worked along the 'beyond reasonable doubt' guidelines - how can there ever NOT be doubt if no body is found?
Pixelpeep said:
Don't know if this has ever been asked on PH but i was wondering how do people get charged with Murder if a body is never recovered?
Surely even if blood, fibres, dna etc is found it still doesn't prove that a) the person is dead and b) the 'accused' killed them?
Even if someone saw you whacking 7 bells out of someone, and that someone was never seen again it doesn't equal that the person is definitely dead?
I thought courts worked along the 'beyond reasonable doubt' guidelines - how can there ever NOT be doubt if no body is found?
Ummmmm, highlighted the important bit.Surely even if blood, fibres, dna etc is found it still doesn't prove that a) the person is dead and b) the 'accused' killed them?
Even if someone saw you whacking 7 bells out of someone, and that someone was never seen again it doesn't equal that the person is definitely dead?
I thought courts worked along the 'beyond reasonable doubt' guidelines - how can there ever NOT be doubt if no body is found?
It means they believe you have killed someone beyond reasonable doubt.
Ergo, I am 90% sure you killed someone. That is beyond reasonable doubt.
I am 51% sure you killed someone. That is not beyond reasonable doubt.
Muncher said:
You answered the question yourself in your final sentence. There is a huge different between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".
But i said, surely there is always doubt if no body is found. You can't be sure the person is dead or dead because of murder if you have no body to examine ?Pixelpeep said:
But i said, surely there is always doubt if no body is found. You can't be sure the person is dead or dead because of murder if you have no body to examine ?
Yes, there can be doubt but I believe as long as the doubt is small, the person can still be convicted of murder. Here's a link for a wiki page showing someone sentenced to murder with no body: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Danielle_Jo...This report covers some of the circumstances that can lead to a murder prosecution without a body.
However, in the above case the conviction was overturned on appeal even though the lawyer for one of them told the court that the "likelihood" was that "one or other" of the women had murdered the missing man.
In summary, even when there is a lot of circumstantial evidence the bar for a murder prosecution without a body is set very high.
Notorious case from last year - Mark Bridger was convicted of the murder of April Jones without her body ever being found.
However, in the above case the conviction was overturned on appeal even though the lawyer for one of them told the court that the "likelihood" was that "one or other" of the women had murdered the missing man.
In summary, even when there is a lot of circumstantial evidence the bar for a murder prosecution without a body is set very high.
Notorious case from last year - Mark Bridger was convicted of the murder of April Jones without her body ever being found.
Edited by ralphrj on Tuesday 6th May 15:00
The Beaver King said:
Ergo, I am 90% sure you killed someone. That is beyond reasonable doubt.
No it isn't. Not even close. In court, if you had a 10% doubt that someone was guilty of the murder, you would find not guilty. I'd say 99% sure they were guilty would be beyond reasonable doubt. hypothetical situation:
Person not seen for several days, police go round, obvious signs of violence, no body but an estimated 7 pints of blood on the floor, blood stained axe on the floor covered in victims blood and that of the attacker, dna lead police to ex-boyfriend who is covered in scratches and and bruises and has clothes ready to wash covered in his ex-girlfriends blood, he has in his flat her mobile, purse bankcards etc and a blood stained carpet with dna, blood and fibres from his ex, he denies all knowledge of what could possibly have happened to her but cannot provide an alibi for the time period involved, and then says that he is being framed by the neighbours who don't like him.
What would you do say 'oh ok sir sorry to have bothered you we will go and arrest the neighbours? 'Oh hang on there's no body, well that's that then lets go and have a brew'!
Person not seen for several days, police go round, obvious signs of violence, no body but an estimated 7 pints of blood on the floor, blood stained axe on the floor covered in victims blood and that of the attacker, dna lead police to ex-boyfriend who is covered in scratches and and bruises and has clothes ready to wash covered in his ex-girlfriends blood, he has in his flat her mobile, purse bankcards etc and a blood stained carpet with dna, blood and fibres from his ex, he denies all knowledge of what could possibly have happened to her but cannot provide an alibi for the time period involved, and then says that he is being framed by the neighbours who don't like him.
What would you do say 'oh ok sir sorry to have bothered you we will go and arrest the neighbours? 'Oh hang on there's no body, well that's that then lets go and have a brew'!
As they say in 'To kill a mockingbird'.
Reasonable doubt can be described as 'shadow of a doubt'.
It was used as a description to a child, but it works.
It means 100% sure.
Or perhaps 99.999999999 sure, although even then, would 0.00000001 be a shadow of a doubt?
I guess different people have different views on this.
Reasonable doubt can be described as 'shadow of a doubt'.
It was used as a description to a child, but it works.
It means 100% sure.
Or perhaps 99.999999999 sure, although even then, would 0.00000001 be a shadow of a doubt?
I guess different people have different views on this.
radio man said:
hypothetical situation:
Person not seen for several days, police go round, obvious signs of violence, no body but an estimated 7 pints of blood on the floor, blood stained axe on the floor covered in victims blood and that of the attacker, dna lead police to ex-boyfriend who is covered in scratches and and bruises and has clothes ready to wash covered in his ex-girlfriends blood, he has in his flat her mobile, purse bankcards etc and a blood stained carpet with dna, blood and fibres from his ex, he denies all knowledge of what could possibly have happened to her but cannot provide an alibi for the time period involved, and then says that he is being framed by the neighbours who don't like him.
What would you do say 'oh ok sir sorry to have bothered you we will go and arrest the neighbours? 'Oh hang on there's no body, well that's that then lets go and have a brew'!
I came home, thought there was an intruder, it was dark, i shouted out for the person to identify themselves but they didn't respond. I grabbed the nearest thing in self defence. It was an accident.Person not seen for several days, police go round, obvious signs of violence, no body but an estimated 7 pints of blood on the floor, blood stained axe on the floor covered in victims blood and that of the attacker, dna lead police to ex-boyfriend who is covered in scratches and and bruises and has clothes ready to wash covered in his ex-girlfriends blood, he has in his flat her mobile, purse bankcards etc and a blood stained carpet with dna, blood and fibres from his ex, he denies all knowledge of what could possibly have happened to her but cannot provide an alibi for the time period involved, and then says that he is being framed by the neighbours who don't like him.
What would you do say 'oh ok sir sorry to have bothered you we will go and arrest the neighbours? 'Oh hang on there's no body, well that's that then lets go and have a brew'!
You could call that the Pistorius Defence ?
Pixelpeep said:
Ok but the person could have taken their own life. How does this prove murder?
There's two points to prove for murder; intent (to kill or cause serious harm) and a humans death. Interestingly, there's no requirement to prove who the human is.Proof of life covers the dead bit. Intent can then be drawn from circumstances - being seen bundled into a car, heard arguing with a partner, and so on. I worked a homicide where no body was ever found. The jury acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. They were satisfied the offender killed the victim, but not that he meant to.
Reasonable doubt in UK trials is so that a jury member is "sure". So in your hypothetical situation, the jury must be sure the victim is dead, and sure the offender intended to kill or seriously hurt them.
Pixelpeep said:
I came home, thought there was an intruder, it was dark, i shouted out for the person to identify themselves but they didn't respond. I grabbed the nearest thing in self defence. It was an accident.
You could call that the Pistorius Defence?
The law on self-defence is well established. You could call that the Pistorius Defence?
See here if you want a better understanding: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
I remember seeing a dramatisation about a murder (In Crawley?) years ago where the murder put the body in a bath of acid because he was convinced that, unless there was a body, he could not be charged.
He was obviously wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_George_Haigh
"During the investigation, it became apparent that Haigh was using the acid to destroy victims' bodies because he misunderstood the term corpus delicti, thinking that if victims' bodies could not be found, then a murder conviction would not be possible. The substantial forensic evidence, notwithstanding the absence of his victims' bodies, was sufficient for him to be convicted for the murders and subsequently executed"
He was obviously wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_George_Haigh
"During the investigation, it became apparent that Haigh was using the acid to destroy victims' bodies because he misunderstood the term corpus delicti, thinking that if victims' bodies could not be found, then a murder conviction would not be possible. The substantial forensic evidence, notwithstanding the absence of his victims' bodies, was sufficient for him to be convicted for the murders and subsequently executed"
Pixelpeep said:
radio man said:
hypothetical situation:
Person not seen for several days, police go round, obvious signs of violence, no body but an estimated 7 pints of blood on the floor, blood stained axe on the floor covered in victims blood and that of the attacker, dna lead police to ex-boyfriend who is covered in scratches and and bruises and has clothes ready to wash covered in his ex-girlfriends blood, he has in his flat her mobile, purse bankcards etc and a blood stained carpet with dna, blood and fibres from his ex, he denies all knowledge of what could possibly have happened to her but cannot provide an alibi for the time period involved, and then says that he is being framed by the neighbours who don't like him.
What would you do say 'oh ok sir sorry to have bothered you we will go and arrest the neighbours? 'Oh hang on there's no body, well that's that then lets go and have a brew'!
I came home, thought there was an intruder, it was dark, i shouted out for the person to identify themselves but they didn't respond. I grabbed the nearest thing in self defence. It was an accident.Person not seen for several days, police go round, obvious signs of violence, no body but an estimated 7 pints of blood on the floor, blood stained axe on the floor covered in victims blood and that of the attacker, dna lead police to ex-boyfriend who is covered in scratches and and bruises and has clothes ready to wash covered in his ex-girlfriends blood, he has in his flat her mobile, purse bankcards etc and a blood stained carpet with dna, blood and fibres from his ex, he denies all knowledge of what could possibly have happened to her but cannot provide an alibi for the time period involved, and then says that he is being framed by the neighbours who don't like him.
What would you do say 'oh ok sir sorry to have bothered you we will go and arrest the neighbours? 'Oh hang on there's no body, well that's that then lets go and have a brew'!
You could call that the Pistorius Defence ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff