I don't understand this

@dfollin (12901)
United States
May 14, 2009 8:58am CST
I have seen many real life cases where a person is missing and the police investigate and suspect a person associated with that person's disappearance.Then they think that the missing person has probably been murdered and they suspect that this person was the killer also.Then the person gets arrested and prosecuted of murder of this missing person.But,they do not have a body. I was just watching a case on tv and a woman was missing and more than likely her estranged husband had killed her.Her blood was all over his bedroom and he had rented a steam cleaner for the carpet.But,they could not arrest him because they had no body.I have seen other cases where they could not make an arrest without a body.But,I have seen cases where they do arrest I do not understand this.Does anyone else understand this?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@stephcjh (32327)
• United States
18 May 09
I do not understand this either. I think they have enough evidence to go ahead and prosecute without having the body.
@Thoroughrob (11750)
• United States
15 May 09
I think it is all according to the evidence they find and how good the prosecutor is. If he thinks he can win, he pursues it.
• United States
14 May 09
i have never understood how they determine that either. maybe it's beacuase they have so much evidence againist one & maybe not the other. i don't understnd much about the judicial system. look how many people stay in prison for years & then they find out they weren't guilty to start with. u can go into court as innocent as a lamb & come out looking like a skunk. go figure??