I'm not sure JLZ. I don't know how the reasoning goes here. Without a body one cannot say she has died, but you can convict without a body. I suppose if you murder someone and throw them out to sea, and then you confess; technically, the police do not know the victim died, except for your words, which could be a false confession, and the fact the person no longer lives their lives as they did prior to the claimed event. Karen no longer lives her life after the 29th like she did before then. Without a confession from Borce, i guess we need to read between the lines and come to be convinced that her absence is owing to her death, rather than to escaping.
Borce's suspicious behaviour would also convince some people- myself included- that he was concealing an act which led to the death of Karen. There is one slight caveat here, which is that perhaps the act/omission by Borce was not 'intentional' which is pivotal for murder. That is, it could have been accidental. Further, it could possibly be the case that it was not an act/omission by Borce at all, but by Sarah. i.e. the stair-case accidental fall theory. So Borce would be guilty only of accessory after the fact.
From what i gather it is all about whether you come to be convinced by people's actions that they are acting in ways suggestive of criminality. That is, is Borce's suspicious drive up the Calder- and subsequent forgetfulness to tell the police in his first interview- the act of a man who is concealing murder? I THINK SO!!!!! So i tend to believe that even without Karen's body, we should look to charging him for her murder. Obviously there are many caveats here, like whether he did it intentionally or not, or whether Sarah did it, etc. So it becomes a minefield of loopholes and conditionals. I'm not sure really. I guess this is why they need more evidence, at least more of Borce lying. Sadly, i get the feeling that without some concrete forensic evidence, no amount of lying will see police bring charges. I just think that's a fact. So they need soil samples, phone pings (which are not even solid evidence, as has been stated in comments by specialists in newspapers), CCTV footage, a confession. The confession strike me as odd. As a juror, i wouldn't be too happy to accept Borce's confession, for how do i know he isn't covering for Sarah?
Now i get the reason why Borce hasn't been charged yet.... hehehehee And i didn't even bring in The Rickard and the potential for mischief there.
Is murder satisfied via phone pings and lies about drives to Gisborne? No. The pub vote says YES; the law court says NO.
