Point of fact there are not "alot" of cases in the US where someone is convicted of murder with no body, and a person who has seemly vanished and only circumstantial evidence. The no-body cases generally have some pieces of evidence that lead LE to believe the person is deceased, evidence of massive blood loss as only one example, and which added to circumstantial evidence is enough for the jury to convict. The courts, however, have upheld that murder cases can hold up with only circumstantial evidence "circumstantial evidence, when sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, may prove the death of a missing person, the existence of a homicide and the guilt of the accused". People vs. Scott
People v. Scott So I, along with others, hope that there is some more direct evidence that will allow a jury to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Some will be revealed in the proof positive, presumption great hearing in conjunction with the preliminary I assume. The basics to prove are still true: Suzanne is deceased, Barry had opportunity and motive and there is no other reasonable explanation for any of the circumstantial evidence.
The “public perception” of proof is usually “direct evidence”, which proves a material element of a crime. My grandson, Johnny, was sitting on the kitchen floor with chocolate cake all over his face. The cake is gone. I pretty much know Johnny ate the cake. But.... no one saw Johnny eat the cake. That’s a circumstantial case. The prosecution (me, grandma) needs to prove to mom Johnny ate the cake.
Direct evidence is a clear confession by a killer, a video of the murder itself, or an eyewitness to a murder that was committed. If someone saw BM murder SM and testified to that, that’s an example of direct evidence.
I think most of us who think BM probably killed SM believe he was the only one there when she was killed with no witnesses around. That means this is going to be a circumstantiacase. Most people don’t realize that DNA, hair, body fluids, blood, fibers, fingerprints, all digital data, GPS, cellphone, recordings, etc. are all examples of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is everything other than eye witness or confessions, iirc, including forensics, witness’ statements (other than witness to the murder), and anything else you can imagine.
The conviction of the majority of murder cases are built around circumstantial evidence. Very few murders have eyewitnesses or confessions. MOO
So the prosecution needs to fit the puzzle pieces together for the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” to garner a conviction, which I have zero doubt they will be successful doing.
The Extra Added on Charges: I’m following Gannon Stauch case (11 yr old CO BOY) who’s step mother is facing murder1 + a multitude of other charges. DA’s charge what’s valid to charge they feel they can be successful prosecuting, so they should!
This isn’t “be nice to BM week” just in case he’s found not guilty of Murder 1. 70 investigators, 1400 tips, 400 interviews, 135 search warrants later these LE & DA want to get the accused convicted for a long time. Life Without Parole + another 100 years would be fine with me. The more charges, the more to use as bargaining chips to be told where SM’s body is, maybe. MOO
I welcome corrections and changes from the more experienced and legal beagles (affectionate term). MOO