Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

One thing I've heard in association with this Casey Anthony thing is the argument that people have been convicted of murder before when no one ever even found a body.

I never really thought about that before, but I think that's a problem. How can a person be convicted of murder...how can it be said that it's been established "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person killed somebody...when they don't even know for sure that the "victim" is dead? I mean, how can you know the victim is even dead in a contemporaneous sense if you don't even have a body?

I am proud to say that I didn't especially pay attention to what was going on in the Casey Anthony trial. But now that it's over the impression I'm getting is that in the past prosecutors have gotten way too much benefit of the doubt.

It is tough, but if a killer manages to dispose of a body in a way that it is never found, should they automatically walk? It puts a greater burden of proof on the prosectution, but not impossible to prove

JohnStOnge wrote:One thing I've heard in association with this Casey Anthony thing is the argument that people have been convicted of murder before when no one ever even found a body.

I never really thought about that before, but I think that's a problem. How can a person be convicted of murder...how can it be said that it's been established "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person killed somebody...when they don't even know for sure that the "victim" is dead? I mean, how can you know the victim is even dead in a contemporaneous sense if you don't even have a body?

I am proud to say that I didn't especially pay attention to what was going on in the Casey Anthony trial. But now that it's over the impression I'm getting is that in the past prosecutors have gotten way too much benefit of the doubt.

"No body-No murder" convictions are very rare, and almost non-existent in US case law. Most of the prevalent case law comes from England.

However, we do not have a rule on this in the US. In theory, a prosecutor's office could bring a charge in absence of a body, but the case would be primarily circumstantial.

There is a relatively famous case in California. Look up Leonard Ewing Scott. He was accused and convicted of murdering his wife, and the prosecution asserted that he had disposed of her body in a bridge construction site. There is a quote from that case (I believe) that sort of spells out the theory that a no-body conviction should be feasible in the US (albeit very difficult to prove):

"Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, may prove the death of a missing person, the existence of a homicide and the guilt of the accused."

All that being said, there should not be a hard and fast rule against bringing such a case. There have been murder trials in the past where suspects believed that they could destroy the body to the point that the lack of forensic evidence would preclude their being charged.

Thomas Capano was convicted of murder without the body ever being found. He stuffed the body into a cooler and dumped it out at sea. The cooler was recovered, but the body never was.

BlueHen86 wrote:Thomas Capano was convicted of murder without the body ever being found. He stuffed the body into a cooler and dumped it out at sea. The cooler was recovered, but the body never was.

I knew that girl.