Sport & Auto
- About Future
- Digital Future
- Cookies Policy
- Terms & Conditions
- Investor Relations
- Contact Future
There have been less than a dozen successful prosecutions for murder when there is no body.
In fact it used to be the law: no body = no murder.
But if, for example, you have 7 pints of DNA matched blood in a puddle somewhere then you can make an educated guess that the person that blood was in, is not functioning very well.
Juries do not like convicting without a body - but in this case we also have a charge of Perverting the Course of Justice. And that relates to the accused allegedly disposing of the body.
And to the OP - the accused has been CHARGED not convicted. Charges are always announced as it keeps justice open, and can encourage other victims to come forward.
As always this thread will end up with endless speculation before the trial, and then endless speculation about whatever the verdict is (despite not once going along to hear the evidence that is actually put to the jury) and then moans about the sentence.
And from that speculation / moans etc only 1 thing will be crystal clear - the identity of the newspaper they read.
The Reverend Lord Henry was not one of those new-fangled parsons who carry the principles of their vocation uncomfortably into private life.
None of you seem to understand; I'm not locked in here with you, you'll all locked in here with me.
This chap may have confessed to the murder but won't or can't state where to find the body. For this reason and for reasons already mentioned in this thread, then murder without a body has to be possible.
My parents' superb apartment in the Costa Del Sol
Holiday Apartment in Andalusia