i always thought that a person couldnt be charged with murder if there was no body because technically they could still be alive or they may have evidence on them linking to someone else. surely there wouldnt be any proof unless there is a body???
2007-06-16 10:35:43 · 7 answers · asked by speirssam 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Two words-Scott Peterson--should answer your question. The words "circumstantial evidence" sound weak, but in actually the totality of circumstantial evidence can be overwhelming. And-the most unreliable evidence can be the eyewitness evidence. People see events quite differently even when viewing the event at the same time.
2007-06-16 12:59:20 · answer #1 · answered by David M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read this book by Ann Rule The guy killed his wife suppossedly, but the real deal is they NEVER found her body and most likely won't , but he was legaly and totaly convicted of murdering her. So yeah you can get convicted of murder without there being a corpse in evidence!
2007-06-16 17:43:10 · answer #2 · answered by ssunfish 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wrong. There can be compelling circumstantial evidence. If a prosecutor can show motive, means, opportunity and only the defendant could have done the crime, a jury could convict.
2007-06-16 17:44:09 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, especially if there is a direct link connecting you to the murder or crime scene.. ie blood, etc.
It is more difficult to prove, and really hard to try but yes, there have been several incidences of this happening
2007-06-16 17:56:36 · answer #4 · answered by stellar2be 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, if there is sufficient circumstantial evidence you can be charged. It's a harder case to win, but it does happen.
2007-06-16 18:08:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, you can be charged if there's no body. It's just very difficult to prove.
2007-06-16 17:38:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is done all the time
2007-06-16 17:43:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋