How can a man be charged with murder and abduction if there is no body?

...I don't understand?

1 to 20 of 22 messages
gingerfurball    pirate
08/10/2012 at 13:49

Maybe some legal types (or someone who understands) could shed some light on that.  

08/10/2012 at 13:55

It's been done - and conviction, too.

Personally, I think it would be hard to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt without a body, though.

08/10/2012 at 13:55

There has to be evidence that hasn't been revealed to the press. I've heard of cases where evidence has been found that implies death - a certain volume of blood, part of a pelvic bone, etc. Things you can't lose and survive.

 

08/10/2012 at 13:59

I doubt the police would've have charged him if they didn't think there was enough evidence to bring a court case against him. there may be other physical evidence that incriminates him.

08/10/2012 at 14:04
08/10/2012 at 14:17

they charged, tried and convicted that David Gilroy in edinburgh and they've still to find the victim.

08/10/2012 at 14:27

As Sarah says, they don't need to recover the body if there is other compelling circumstantial evidence to indicate (i) that the victim is dead (ii) that it was an 'unlawful' death and (iii) points to the guilt of the accused.

There have been lots of cases where things like bone fragments and bits of false teeth have been used to convict someone of murder, I don't know what evidence they've found but if they think it's sufficient to charge him with murder now (rather than say child abduction and wait to gather further evidence) then it doesn't look good

Edited: 08/10/2012 at 14:28
08/10/2012 at 16:13

Have a look at this;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4264963.stm  This chap lived a short distance away from me. The car described was left on my most regular run route; I cannot go past the place where the incident happened without getting a cold chill, and it is the most beautiful spot. There was another site that made a good case for his innocence but I cannot find it now. I thought it was www.nick-rose.co.uk but this site has more stuff against him! Saying he should say where the body is and take a lie detector. If I remember correctly the blood was said to be microscopic  and could be the result of a nose bleed; described as common for someone taking cocaine. As others have said the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the murder took place; and this was proved by the existance of blood in his car. It is horrific for anyone to lose someone like this, but to know that the body is out there somewhere must be torture on torture (and the is she alive question that must haunt them). Googleing his name provides stacks of stuff on the murder and murder without a body.

08/10/2012 at 17:24

Wasn't he also charged with perverting the course of justice, which could be the part about him refusing to divulge the whereabouts of the body a la Brady\Hindley.

So he may have admitted to doing it but just won't fess up to where the body is.

 

08/10/2012 at 17:32

Could be, or trying to cover up other evidence earlier in the investigation. I can't imagine how awful this is for her parents, I really hope they find her soon.

08/10/2012 at 18:22
Well the police wouldn't arrest a man unless he was guilty.
08/10/2012 at 18:35

Even if it goes to court, the jury still have to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which could prove extremely difficult without a body. If he is guilty, then I hope that they throw the full weight of the law behind him, but if he's innocent, the press have just done him the disservice of labelling him a murderer.

08/10/2012 at 19:20

Horrendous story, the parents worst nightmare.

It seems wrong that they can reveal the name, photo and details of the guy charged though.

Imagine the unlikely event that he's not actually guilty!

08/10/2012 at 19:26

?????? Too Much Water! What are you saying? The Police can arrest anyone; even if they have not committed an offence! Keep an open mind, this is how misscarriages of justice occur.

JPenno    pirate
08/10/2012 at 20:56

As far as I am aware the basis of his arrest and the nature of the search changed whilst he was being interviewed.

He was initially arrested in connection with abduction as various witnesses identified his vehicle as being the one at the scene of her disappearance

During his period of detention he was then arrested on suspicion of Murder which tends to suspect that he dropped something during interview.

The perverting the course of justice could be related to anything from disposing of clothing to setting fire to his car

08/10/2012 at 21:16
SideBurn wrote (see)

?????? Too Much Water! What are you saying? The Police can arrest anyone; even if they have not committed an offence! Keep an open mind, this is how misscarriages of justice occur.

I think you're the reason smilies on forums are necessary!

In case that's not clear, Too Much Water was being tongue in cheek!

08/10/2012 at 21:38

if he is guilty of murder I wish he'd tell those poor parents where he has left their little girl such a terribly terribly sad story

08/10/2012 at 21:43

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-19755773

Basicaly found guilty as even in the absence of a body there was enough evidence at the scene to proove the murder had happened.

 

08/10/2012 at 22:48

JPenno's bang on. Looks like he coughed to something in his interviews.

08/10/2012 at 22:50

There was a body-free murder trial in St Albans last month. Convicted

1 to 20 of 22 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums