Police search for missing 5 year old in Wales

This is what I don't understand,

Man is charged with murder, abduction and perverting the course of justice with little if any hard evidence.

No one is charged or even arrested with fatally stabbing someone in a town centre burger king restaurant which is almost certainly going to have working CCTV in abundance.

I think they had no choice but to detain him and they only way they could now is to formally charge him. If he had been released now chances are he'd be found dead or seriously injured before the weekend is over thanks to a witch hunt brigade. Come monday in court, if he's found not guilty and free'd the chances of the public vengeance spree are reduced.
 
Last edited:
Such is the way it is I suppose. An even more frightening thought would be there is potentially someone still out there capable of committing such a horrible crime again. If he is freed then it surely has to be there is not enough evidence to commit.
 
the problem is even if he is released without charge until someone else is caught his life is effectively over. he cant go anywhere without encountering someone who will wish ill on him.

whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty ?




in regards to the no body thing there was a guy up here nat frazer iirc was charged with his wifes murder even though no body was ever found
 
I worry since the Maddy McCann review which is still ongoing. Operation Grange has so far taken 15 months and 2.5 million pounds of tax payers money. They have visited Portugal and Spain gathering evidence from private investigators that have been paid hundreds of thousands pounds.

Twenty eight top homicide officers have been reviewing the evidence and now they need to approach the PM again to secure more funds and time.

The statement given out so far is they are working on two possibilities. The first is she may be alive, and the second she maybe sadly dead.

Yet they can solve a UK case in less than 5 days without a body.
 
Third Opinion said:
Operation Grange has so far taken 15 months and 2.5 million pounds of tax payers money.

The statement given out so far is they are working on two possibilities. The first is she may be alive, and the second she maybe sadly dead.
Click to expand...

Sounds like money well spent.
 
estebanrey said:
It will come to light when it comes to court (ergo the evidence they have).

BTW, to the people who earlier asked how you could charge someone with murder without a body need look no futher than Ian Brady. He has been convicted of killing Keith Bennett despite no body. There was also a guy recently convicted of killing his wife despite the facte her body hadn't been found.

If it was true that you couldn't convict a murderer without a body if would be a scary world.
Click to expand...

It SHOULD be (and is AFAIK) true, how can it even qualify as murder without a body??? Logically the most that could happen is missing - presumed dead, it makes me sick to think people can be charged with murder without a body, that means the whole case can be fabricated from top to bottom, it's like something from the Middle Ages.
 
Last edited:
MadMossy said:
This is what I don't understand,

Man is charged with murder, abduction and perverting the course of justice with little if any hard evidence.

No one is charged or even arrested with fatally stabbing someone in a town centre burger king restaurant which is almost certainly going to have working CCTV in abundance.

I think they had no choice but to detain him and they only way they could now is to formally charge him. If he had been released now chances are he'd be found dead or seriously injured before the weekend is over thanks to a witch hunt brigade. Come monday in court, if he's found not guilty and free'd the chances of the public vengeance spree are reduced.
Click to expand...

unless he admitted it to some extent in questioning, we dont know and we wont know until it goes to crown court. Monday will be magistrates where they will make a decision to remand him in custody, which is a certainty with someone who is charged with murder.

its still strange that they can charge someone with murder with no body or concrete evidence she is dead
 
MadMossy said:
Man is charged with murder, abduction and perverting the course of justice with little if any hard evidence.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you are privy to the evidence (or lack of that you infer) relating to the case - care to share your insider knowledge?
 
You only need to look at the 'Joanna Yeates' murder, & the ordeal Christopher Jefferies went through before they got the right person.
 
Kenai said:
Interesting that you are privy to the evidence (or lack of that you infer) relating to the case - care to share your insider knowledge?
Click to expand...

If any evidence had been found it would have been in the early stages of investigation and would have resulted in him being charged, rather than waiting till the very last minute like they did.

The press conference given gave very mixed signals about the case. I would bet money on them having nothing at all to convict him.

They may have arrested him and charged him but its a conviction that matters.
 
MadMossy said:
If any evidence had been found it would have been in the early stages of investigation and would have resulted in him being charged, rather than waiting till the very last minute like they did.
Click to expand...

That's a fact is it? That you know to be true? It always happens that way?

MadMossy said:
The press conference given gave very mixed signals about the case. I would bet money on them having nothing at all to convict him.

They may have arrested him and charged him but its a conviction that matters.
Click to expand...

What you would or wouldn't bet on and the rest of your idle speculation doesn't necessarily bear any correlation to what is happening.

Just because a press conference seemed a bit odd to you and there isn't loads of evidence plastered all over BBC News doesn't mean things aren't happening privately.

It really does annoy me the way people seem to assume that if there is no evidence presented in the news for something, that must automatically mean there is no evidence at all.
 
chipachap said:
It SHOULD be (and is AFAIK) true, how can it even qualify as murder without a body??? Logically the most that could happen is missing - presumed dead, it makes me sick to think people can be charged with murder without a body, that means the whole case can be fabricated from top to bottom, it's like something from the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...

Having a body is not mandatory evidence to secure a murder conviction. You don't even need a weapon, a witness or a motive. All you need is to convince the jury beyond all reasonable doubt.

Rethink what you just said. Imagine if your friend just broke up with her boyfriend and told you that he was scaring her by saying he might do something crazy. You tell her that you're coming to pick her up so you can take her to the police station. By the time you get there, she's disappeared with clear signs of duress in the house. In the ensuing investigation, police believe it was the boyfriend and that she most likely is dead although her body is never found. So by principal, I assume you'd let him go free?
 
Biohazard said:
It's happened a few times now I believe.

You do need a substantial case against them, normally including strong forensic evidence.
Click to expand...



You are correct. My understanding is that you need to convince a jury:

1) That the victim is dead.
2) That the victim was murdered.
3) That the accused carried out that murder.

A body is very, very helpful in all that, but not vital. The best-known case is John Haigh, but his case is not a typical one. For a start, he set out to destroy the bodies because he made the same misunderstanding. But in his case, parts of the bodies did remain. But convictions have been made with no body. These are usually where the victim is young or female - it's much harder to convince a jury that man has not just run off somewhere.
 
Meridian said:
My understanding is that you need to convince a jury:

1) That the victim is dead.
2) That the victim was murdered.
3) That the accused carried out that murder.
Click to expand...

Surely you can summarise that to one point and that is, convincing a jury that the defendant is guilty of the murder of the victim?
 
Thing I dont get is, without a body showing that there has actually been a murder, surely his defense to the charge of murder will simply be "what murder?" , You show me a murder and I will tell you whether I am guilty or innocent of being the murderer.
 
Which is basically what I've been saying, the arrest and charge of all three accusations means nothing.

A conviction is what counts and I don't think they have the evidence to convict him of all three. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, this entire case has been very unusual right from the start.
 
Tombstone said:
Thing I dont get is, without a body showing that there has actually been a murder, surely his defense to the charge of murder will simply be "what murder?" , You show me a murder and I will tell you whether I am guilty or innocent of being the murderer.
Click to expand...

That's just simply a not guilty plea. Just like "I didn't do it" is a not guilty plea.

The prosecution will have to convince the jury that he is guilty and part of that will be their evidence to why the victim is dead.

Two people this year in this country, have been convicted of murder where the victim's body was never found.
 
Maybe they are using him to get to the real kidnapper, Telling people to step down as to give the impression that the nasty bloke out there is still safe from being caught.

Or have i watched too many movies :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom