In a no-body case, how can a husband be prosecuted for murder?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

People disappear all the time. Without a body and some forensic evidence, how are you supposed to know who or what is at fault for the disappearance? She might well have fallen overboard just as the guy says, or she could have been murdered, or anything in between.

You can't seriously convict a guy of murder with no evidence whatsoever, when he reported her missing pretty much immediately. Even if she was murdered, how in God's name does anyone expect to prove that? By now, her body has likely been eaten by the fishes.

[NaultD]

First and foremost their's a jury of peers. 1 person out of 12 can't agree a murder happen they don't get convicted. It's a high standard to put someone away.

Lot of times it's the husband trying to lead the police into a set up that tips them off. You don't know nothing you should say nothing. "Look she left and that's her luggage on the side of the road." Then you look a lot of basic essential like no bras are left out because the guy packed it. Stupid shit like that.

Majority of case's of murder go unsolved but sometimes the spouse is a special case of Stupid and gets caught.

[NaultD]

Lot of female victims of rape who try to use the legal defensible right of self defense end up getting charged with murder because they talk to police.

You have a right to a lawyer for a reason and police and detective have a criminal intervention that speaks for itself and void of your input. Every day is shut the fuck up Friday and hire a lawyer.

Know some dangerous information about a dangerous killer? Get in contact with local newspaper journalist. Have them contact a lawyer Pro bono "greater good" free legal services.

Talking to police directly is too dangerous for everyone at any time.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Peer juries are unreliable.
They may not be intelligent enough to understand the evidences limitations.
The may be biased and hide that bias during jury selection.
They might be out for revenge, and just convict the first person the police and DA accused, or convict someone for no real reason other than "someone has to pay".

Derek Chauvin was falsely convicted of "murder" because he put his knee in George Floyd's back, which is NOT a lethal submission, it's not even a good submission at all, but because a crowd of rioting blacks demanded it, Chauvin was fed to the sharks. George Floyd got treated like a Saint, even though he was a repeat felon and even though the toxicology report showed he died from Fentanyl overdose and even though he was already foaming at the mouth before the police ever touched him.

False convictions due to false accusations and faulty interpretations of evidence or else because an incompetent and biased jury just wants to "head hunt" are all real problems and they happen all the time, especially in murder cases.

Personally, I think we need some sort of new legal Judicial system for murder and rape trials, because peer juries do not get it right. I think it should be like in Ancient Israel, where you should be required to have a Law Degree to sit on a jury.

[NathanDavis]

exactly as you said...

today, more than ever... it is easier to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that a person has been a goner

traces of DNA, or belongings... the sudden stop of a normal life (as phone records)

evidence of cleaning, disposal or whatever other stuff but more than anything... it is the murderers actively trying to mislead and lie to authorities and failing to do so, lol

and all that is called circumstantial evidence, I think

[exitseven]

if there is sufficient evidence for a Grand Jury to indict it can happen.

[Dargil]

Everyone can be prosecuted if they are indicted.

[Mike_Hum]

Who are you talking about?