General Chat

Bodies are pieces of evidence; as long as there is enough evidence in total it doesn't matter what the bits are. Creating a 'no body, no murder' scenario wouldn't be any more just than the present system. I don't trust DNA evidence either. You squeeze passed someone on the Tube and a strand of hair sticks to a stranger's clothing. Stranger is later the victim of a crime. Guess what: your DNA has been found at the crime scene. The police had no problem fitting up the Guildford Four and the Bridgwater Three without DNA; just imagine what they could do with a few nice juicy samples at their disposal.

When I lived in Germany a few years ago there was a case in the news about a woman who had gone missing in a small town. The local police pulled in a man and charged him, on the basis that he had a record for petty theft ten years previously, and that he had been seen talking to her on the day that she disappeared. He was subsequently found guilty of her murder based on this flimsy evidence. Three years later this woman turned up alive and well, said 'sorry, things were getting on top of me, needed some space so I disappeared.' Amazingly it took the German justice system another three months to release this poor bloke, due to their obession with obtaining all the correct paperwork!! I know that was not in the UK and every country is different, but it a scenario that could possibly happen here and I find that very scary.

By the way, I hope I didn't sound like 'don't talk about it anymore', I didn't mean that at all. It's been dominating the local news lately (understandably). It's a reasonable question, but am undecided on what I think. Er, does that make sense?

This is a bit of a raw nerve in a town near us, Lisa. The case that Paul mentioned is that of a missing girl called Charlotte Pinkney from Ilfracombe, Devon. A guy called Nicholas Rose has been found guilty of her murder, although her body has not been found. Glenys x

I am not yet convinced of the reliability of DNA evidence. It is all very well for scientists to go on about strands of DNA which are totally invisible except under a really powerful microscope, but what if they have the strands upside down? Or worse yet, a strand of DNA from a flake of your dead skin which, blowing in the wind, settled on the victim's body.

only if there is enough evidence Lucia

They might find blood and that would indicate injury but to assume death they would have to find an amount of blood, the loss of which would be incompatible with life. Abigail

The body of Muriel McKay was never found, yet two people were found guilty of her murder. I think the very scary thing about courts is that if I were on a jury and the prosecution called Dr/Professor Bloggs, the world's leading expert on bloodspots/fingerprints/DNA testing whatever, how on earth would I know whether what he said was right or not? At the beginning of the 20th century, Sir Bernard Spillsbury was a forensic pathologist. He was famous and gave evidence at many capital trials. My father said that such was his reputation that if he was called for the Crown you could guarantee the bloke would be found guilty. Now there has been a lot of doubt cast on his findings. He committed suicide. But if you are told someone is an expert and they present info about which you know nothing, who are you to question it - what if the defence counsel are useless? Look at the people involved in the Orkney child abuse cases and the recent overturning of convictions of mothers accused of killing their babies. nell

if they have the evidence then yes limmie xxx

a fight broke out at my brother-in-laws local and he was dragged in even though he wasn't involved.he admitted that the police interigated him.had interviewed him for hours on ened until he was so tired that he didn't care what he said,my brother has told me that aswell.they try to force a confession even if you haven't done it.in few caes this happens not allxxxx(:

There have been many cases over the years where a charge has been made without the body being found. That must be even worse for the victims's family, not being able to hold a funeral and have some form of 'closure'.

in certain legal systems though a body is required, i think it's the american. or is it that a body part has t be found.

and yes, Deanna, it is a horrible feeling being accused of something you didn't do, I know that from experience (although thankfully it wasn't murder !!)

A confession does'nt mean a thing! Many people admit to things they did'nt do. Its quite common. Deanna

my brother was pulled in for a crime he didn't commit he had witnesses who said he was working on the day the crime took place but he was chucked in the cell for two days.someone that knew him said that he fitted the e fitxxxx(:

yes clarks proposal is a bit like a dictatorship, how do we know that his prejudices won't get in the way of his impartiality.

yes, 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the key phrase. I do think though, that the lack of a body shouldn't mean no conviction - otherwise you could literally get away with murder just be disposing of the body well, even if you were subsequently found covered in the victims blood etc...

That's why we have jury trials: to obtain a conviction the prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. (As opposed to Clarke's proposal to intern 'terror suspects' as defined by himself, on his own say-so).

a confession pretty much closes the case doesn't it ? lol as to the previous question - yes, there's no doubt that the police do occasionally get it wrong. but thats a minority of cases.

Yes, just imagine being accused of a murder you did not commit? no body just someones IDEA? What an horrendous experience. Deanna